phd defense closed session

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• Top 10 AI-Based Research Paper Abstract Generators
• EditPad Research Title Generator: Is It Helpful to Create a Title for Your Research?
• Are Postdoctoral Fellowships Taxable? A Guide to Understanding Tax Implications
• How to Get Off-Cycle Research/Academic Internships
• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

University of Rochester

Search Rochester.edu

Popular Searches

Resources for

• Prospective students
• Current students
• Faculty and staff

Arts, Sciences & Engineering

Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs

• PhD Defense

Preparing for a PhD Defense

Table of contents, preparing to start, nominate a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense, selecting a defense date, international students and work visas, registration categories for defense, dissertation writing and guidelines, preparing your dissertation for defense, registering your dissertation for the final oral exam, know the rituals.

• Use PowerPoint

Public Lecture

Dress Professionally

Items to Bring to the Defense

The Closed Examination

Address Questions with Confidence

Student Status

Final corrected copies of the dissertation, publishing your final dissertation, binding your final dissertation, before defense.

Before you can start your thesis you must:

• Complete all courses, exams, and research requirements
• Meet with your advisory committee to ensure that everyone agrees that the work is ready to defend
• Decide on a date for the defense
• Inform your graduate administrator that you have started the process to prepare for your defense

A chair is appointed for each PhD oral defense to monitor and promote fairness and rigor in the conduct of the defense. To help eliminate pre-established judgments on the candidate’s work, the chair should be from a different program/department than the student. For more information about chair responsibilities, read the instructions for the chair .

You must identify a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense. The chair must be:

• A current full-time faculty member at assistant professor rank or higher
• Outside the department offering the degree program, or outside your advisor's department (interdisciplinary degree programs only)
• Someone who has not had prior involvement in your research

The selection of the chair is subject to the approval of the department/program, th Arts, Sciences and Engineering dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the University dean of graduate studies.

The chair must be physically present during the entire defense, including the public oral presentation (if applicable) and the questioning session. The chair is welcome to read and comment on the dissertation and/or the defense presentation, but this is not required. The chair does not need to be an expert in your research area.

It is your responsibility to get a copy of the final dissertation to the chair at least one week prior to the defense.

You should begin scheduling the actual defense date three months in advance to ensure that your advisor, committee members, and chair are able to be present and that rooms are available on the date and time selected.  

Defenses can be held on any day the University’s Graduate Studies Office is open (not weekends, evenings, holidays, or the days between Christmas and New Year’s). Check the  academic calendar  for important dates and deadlines.

Use the  PhD calendar  to determine the deadline dates for getting your paperwork to the Office of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs and department committee.

When all committee members and your chair agree to a specific date and time for the defense, inform your graduate administrator as soon as you possibly can, but no later than six weeks prior to your defense date . Your graduate administrator will advise you of any program-specific requirements for the defense as well as work with you to prepare for your thesis defense. They will also help you determine who will schedule the room for your thesis defense.

You should provide your committee members at least two weeks to read and comment on your dissertation before the date you need to register your dissertation.

Participating Via Video Conferencing

While you, your advisor, and the chair must all be physically present in the room for the defense, other committee members are allowed to participate in the defense remotely via Skype or other video conferencing technology so long as all committee members agree to the arrangement. This must also be approved by the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs and the University dean of graduate studies before the dissertation is registered for defense.

Someone other than you and your committee must handle the IT setup and be on standby for any problems. If anyone involved finds that remote participation is interfering with the defense, he or she can request that the defense be rescheduled.

We strongly recommend that international students meet with an  International Services Office (ISO)  representative as soon as permission to start writing is granted. The ISO will provide information on visa options, documentation, and timelines for applying for a visa for employment in the United States.

You will register for one of the following categories while preparing your defense:

• 999: Dissertation —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is in residence as a full-time student
• 995 : Continuation of Enrollment —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is not in residence as a full-time student

See the registration page for more information about these categories.

The Preparing Your Doctoral Dissertation manual is a great resource to help you bring your dissertation up to the required standard of organization, appearance, and format for the University of Rochester. Before preparing the defense copy of your dissertation, check the contents of the manual carefully to help avoid mistakes that can be time-consuming and costly to correct.

Before beginning your dissertation, you should consult with your advisor for your department or program’s preferred style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago).

Including material produced by other authors in your dissertation can serve a legitimate research purpose, but you want to avoid copyright infringement in the process. For detailed instructions on avoiding copyright infringement, please see ProQuest’s  Copyright Guide .

The University requires that you provide copies of the dissertation to your committee members and exam chair. You should check with your committee members to see if they prefer printed or electronic copies (or both). Printed copies do not need to be printed on heavyweight, expensive paper unless there is the need to do so for figures and images. 

Printing and binding a dissertation can be expensive. You can use the Copy Center or FedEx Office to print and bind your dissertation.

In order to register your dissertation, you or your graduate administrator will need to create a record on the Graduate Studies PhD Completion website . This record will include:

• Degree information
• Past degrees
• Contact information
• The defense version of your dissertation as a PDF
• Other relevant documents

The version of your dissertation attached to your online record is considered the registration copy.

When your PhD completion record is finalized, committee members will receive emails with links to access your record and approve your dissertation to progress to defense. You’ll need to provide copies of the dissertation identical to the registration copy to all members of your committee, including the chair, at least two weeks before the record is finalized. Everyone but the chair is required to comment or sign off on the dissertation before it is submitted.

There may be deadlines for registering your dissertation specific to your program. Consult with your graduate administrator to ascertain those deadlines and follow them carefully.

After all committee members have provided their approval, your thesis will be reviewed by your faculty director/department chair, the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the office of the University dean of graduate studies. When all of these officials have approved your committee and dissertation for defense, your dissertation is considered registered. You will be able to track these approvals in your online record and will receive a confirmation email when approvals are complete.

The GEPA Office and the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, as well as the University Graduate Studies Office, may make corrections to the PDF of your dissertation. This annotated copy of your dissertation, along with the original version, will be stored in the PhD completion website. You are not allow to distribute updated versions of your dissertation prior to the defense, but be sure to incorporate any corrections before uploading your final dissertation to ProQuest®. 

After the defense, if the committee has required major revisions to be approved by one or more of its members, it is your responsibility to provide them with the corrected final version for their approval.  They will be asked to submit written confirmation of that approval to the University Graduate Studies Office. Failure to do so could delay conferral of your degree.

After the defense, you will receive additional instructions by email for completion of all PhD degree requirements.

It is important to walk into the defense knowing that your committee wants you to pass. Even if criticism is harsh, it is meant to be constructive. The defense is not solely an opportunity for the committee to compliment and congratulate you for the work you have done. It is also meant to challenge you and force you to consider tough questions.

The Defense

The best way to prepare for your defense is to regularly attend the defenses of your colleagues throughout your graduate program, not just several weeks prior to your own defense.

You can also talk to people in your department who already defended to find out what their defenses were like. You should also speak with your advisor to get a sense of his/her specific expectations of a defense.

Guidelines for Presentations

Use PowerPoint or Other Software to Create Slides

You should prepare a presentation of the research that comprises the thesis. Your slides should encapsulate the work and focus on its most salient contributions. In preparing, ask yourself these questions: “What do I want people to know about my thesis? What is the most important information that I can present and talk about?”

Here are some basic tips:

• Use text large enough to be read by the audience (especially text from figures)
• Ensure graphics and tables are clear
• Don’t clutter your slides—if necessary, have things come up on mouse clicks
• Use spell check and proofread your slides
• Practice your presentation with your peers
• Work on pronunciation, if required
• Time your presentation to ensure it will fit the allotted time while allowing time for questions

If your defense includes a public lecture, we recommended that you do a trial run a day or two before in the room that has been booked for your lecture. This will allow you to familiarize yourself with the space and the equipment and to address any problems that arise during the trial run. 

Plan your public lecture to allow enough time for questions. Present enough information so that the audience understands what you did, why you did it, what the implications are, and what your suggestions are for future research.

Friends and family are welcome to attend your public lecture. Faculty and students in the audience are given the opportunity to ask questions.

Plan to dress professionally for the defense in the same way you would if presenting a paper at a conference or for a job interview. You will be standing for a long time on the day of your defense. You might want to keep this in mind when selecting the shoes you will wear for your defense.

Essentials for your public lecture include:

• Your presentation
• A laser pointer
• A copy of your dissertation
• A pen or pencil
• A bottle of water 

You will be asked to leave the room while your committee reviews your program of study, and decides whether:

• The thesis is acceptable/not acceptable
• Whether members will ask sequential questions or whether each member will be allotted a specific time period for questioning

The person to start the questioning is designated. You will be called back into the examining room and questioning will begin. After all questions have been addressed, you will be asked to leave the room while your committee decides the outcome of the exam. You will be asked to return to the room to be informed of the outcome by the chair of your exam committee.

• Listen  to the entire question no matter how long it takes the faculty member or student to ask it (take notes if necessary).
• Pause and think  about the question before answering.
• Rephrase  the question.
• Answer  the question to the best of your ability; if you do not know the answer, remain calm and say so in a professional way.
• Remember  that no one will know the ins and outs of the thesis and your research materials as well as you.  You  are the foremost expert in the thesis topic and  YOU know the research involved. Be positive!

Possible outcomes include:

• Acceptable with minor or no revisions (no further approval required)
• Acceptable with major revisions in content or format (in this case, one or more committee members must be responsible for overseeing and approving the major revisions before the final copies are submitted)
• Not acceptable

After the Defense

You can submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation as soon as you address any remaining comments that were brought up during the defense or noted in the registration copy of your dissertation, which will be returned to you usually within a few days before or after the defense. You can take up to one semester following the defense to address any comments, during which you can remain a full-time student. Your degree conferral date will depend on when you submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation.

The day after your defense, you will receive an email from the University dean of graduate studies that provides instructions on how to:

• Submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation through ProQuest
• Provide authorization for the release of your dissertation through UR Research
• Complete a mandatory online exit survey
• Verify to the University dean of graduate studies’ office that the dissertation has been submitted

The University of Rochester requires all doctoral candidates to deposit their dissertations for publication with ProQuest Dissertation Publishing and with the University libraries. Hard copies are not required. The library receives an electronic copy of the dissertation from ProQuest, but students must give the University permission to obtain it.

For questions regarding publishing through ProQuest, contact Author Relations at [email protected] or (800) 521-0600 ext. 77020.

Check with your graduate administrator to see if your department wants a bound copy of your dissertation, and, if so, how the cost of binding is covered.

If you want a bound copy for yourself or your family, you can purchase one through ProQuest .

Swath and Dive: A pattern for PhD defense presentations

In recent times I’m having the fortune of seeing several of my own doctoral students approach the end of the doctoral journey (yes, it does end!). As they submit the dissertation and prepare for their defense, there is one piece of advice I find myself giving again and again, about how to tackle the impossible task of presenting multiple years of research work in less than one hour. In this post, I describe a “presentation design pattern” for thesis defenses, which builds upon classic conceptualization exercises advocated in the blog. I also illustrate it with an example from my own thesis defense presentation, more than ten years ago (gasp!).

I still vividly remember when I had to prepare my defense presentation, how I tried to shoehorn tons of concepts into an impossibly small number of slides… which still were too many for the 45-minute talk I was supposed to give at the defense. After several rehearsals (with an audience!) and lots of feedback from my colleagues and advisors, I finally stumbled upon a solution. Later on, I have found that a similar structure was also helpful to other doctoral students preparing their defenses.

The rest of the post takes the form of a presentation design pattern , i.e., a description of “a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and […] the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice." 1 (a concept originally proposed in architecture, and later used in software engineering, pedagogy and many other fields). I have called this pattern Swath and Dive (for reasons that will become obvious in a minute).

The context: when is this pattern applicable?

When you have to prepare an oral presentation for a doctoral dissertation defense. This pattern is especially helpful if the research is a bit complicated (e.g., composed of multiple contributions , multiple studies, or using multiple research methods) and it is not obvious what contents to include/exclude from the presentation.

What is the problem? What forces are at play?

The main problem this pattern tries to solve is the seeming impossibility of showing 3+ years of research work in less than one hour. While time restrictions and structure for the defense are different in different countries, typically 25-60 minutes are allocated for the presentation. This limited time is a key force at play, but there are others as well:

• The sheer volume of a thesis dissertation’s contents (typically, a 100-500 pages document), which itself is a condensation of years of hard research work.
• Defending PhD students need to prove to the jury that they are now competent, independent researchers (i.e., they master the literature of their topic, are able to apply a research methodology and think critically about the results ).
• The varying levels of expertise and familiarity of the jury members with the concrete thesis topic.
• The varying levels of knowledge that jury members have of the dissertation materials (i.e., did they read the dissertation document in full? with what level of attention?). While all members are supposed to have read the document, in practice there is a lot of heterogeneity in compliance.

The typical end product of these forces is what I call the “skimming” approach to the defense presentation (see picture below): The presentation provides only a very high level overview of the main elements of the dissertation document (sort of like a table of contents). More often than not, too much time is spent in the introductory and related literature parts of the presentation (which are somehow “safe”, less likely to be criticized – another instance of avoidance at work in the PhD ), and time runs out when the student is getting to the really interesting part for the jury (the student’s own work). This approach of course has the critical flaw of not showcasing enough of the student’s own abilities and research outcomes.

Skimming: A typical approach to selecting thesis defense content

How to avoid “skimming” your dissertation? Enter Swath and Dive .

The solution: Swath and Dive

What I propose in this pattern is to structure the presentation in a different way, a way that tries to balance the need for an overview of the dissertation and (at least some of) the richness of the investigation and the hard work the student has put behind it. The proposed structure goes like this:

A swath is “a long broad strip or belt” of grass, often left by a scythe or a lawnmower. In the context of a dissertation defense presentation, this is where the student gives the overview of the main elements of the thesis: key related scientific literature , main research questions , contributions to knowledge the dissertation makes, etc. Long-time readers of the blog will recognize these key elements as the components of the CQOCE diagram , one of the key reflection exercises in the “Happy PhD Toolkit” to (iteratively) understand and discuss with supervisors the overall view of the thesis. Aside from those key elements, probably some notes about the research methodology followed (which are not part of the canonical CQOCE diagram exercise) will also be needed.

In a sense, the Swath is not so different from the typical “skimming” mentioned above. There are several crucial differences, however: 1) when developing the Swath , we need to keep in mind that this is only a part (say, 50%) of the presentation time/length/slides; 2) the Swath should give equal importance to all its key elements (e.g., avoiding too much time on the literature context of the thesis, and making the necessary time for the student’s own research questions, contributions and studies); and 3) the Swath does not need to follow the chapter structure of the dissertation manuscript, rather focusing on the aforementioned key elements (although scattering pointers to the relevant chapters will help orient the jury members who read the dissertation).

Then, within this high-level Swath describing the dissertation, when we mention a particular contribution or study, it is time to do…

This part of the presentation is where the student selects one study or finding of the thesis and zooms in to describe the nitty-gritty details of the evidence the student gathered and analyzed (if it is empirical research), how that was done, and what findings came out of such analysis. The goal here is to help the audience trace at least one of those high-level, abstract elements, all the way down to (some) particular pieces of the raw data, the evidence used to form them.

How to select which part to Dive into? That is a bit up to the student and the particular dissertation. The student can select the main contribution of the dissertation, the most surprising finding, the largest or most impressive study within the work, or the coolest, most novel, or most difficult research method that was used during the dissertation process (e.g., to showcase how skillfully and systematically it was used). The student should give all the steps of the logic leading from low-level evidence to high-level elements – or as much as possible within the time constraints of the presentation (say, 30% of the total length/time/slides).

An essential coda: Limitations and Future Work

Although this didn’t make it to the title of the pattern, I believe it is crucially important to keep in mind another element in any good defense presentation: the limitations of the student’s research work, and the new avenues for research that the dissertation opens. These two areas are often neglected in crafting the defense presentation, maybe with a single slide just copy-pasting a few ideas from the dissertation manuscript (which were themselves hastily written when the student was exhausted and rushing to finish the whole thing). Yet, if the student convinced the jury of her basic research competence and knowledge during the Swath and Dive part, a big part of the jury questions and discussion will focus on these apparently trivial sections.

When doing the limitations, the student should gloss over the obvious (e.g., sample could have been bigger, there are questions about the generalizability of results) and think a bit deeper about alternative explanations that cannot be entirely ruled out, debatable aspects of the methodology followed… squeeze your brain (and ask your supervisors/colleagues) to brainstorm as many ideas as possible, and select the most juicy ones. For future work, also go beyond the obvious and think big : if someone gave you one million dollars (or 10 million!), what cool new studies could continue the path you opened? what new methods could be applied? what experts would you bring from other disciplines to understand the phenomenon from a different perspective? what other phenomena could be studied in the same way as you did this one? Try to close the presentation with a vision of the brighter future that this research might unleash upon the world.

Swath and Dive: a different way of structuring your defense presentation

To understand how this pattern could look like, I can point you to my own thesis defense presentation, which is still available online . This is not because the presentation is perfect in any way, or even a good example (viewing it today I find it overcomplicated, and people complained of motion sickness due to its fast pace and Prezi’s presentation metaphor of moving along an infinite canvas)… but at least it will give you a concrete idea of what I described in abstract terms above.

If you play the presentation , you will notice that the first few slides (frames 1-6) just lay out the main construct the dissertation focuses on (“orchestration”), the structure of the presentation and its mapping to dissertation chapters. Then, the bulk of the presentation (frames 7-117) goes over the main elements of the dissertation according to the CQOCE diagram , i.e., the Swath part of the pattern. Within this high-level view of the dissertation, I inserted a short detour on the research methodology followed (frames 25-28) and, more importantly, several Dives into specific findings and the evidence behind them (frames 43-48, 66-72, and 99-112). Then, frames 118-136 provide the conclusive coda that includes the future work (but not the limitations, which were peppered through the Swath part of the presentation – a dubious choice, if you ask me today).

Variations and related patterns

As you can see from the example above, one does not need to follow the canonical version of Swath and Dive (mine is rather Swath and Three Dives ). Yet, paraphrasing Alexander, that is the point of the pattern: to have the core of the idea, which you can use to produce a million different solutions, tailored to your particular context and subject matter.

It is also important to realize that this structuring pattern for thesis defense presentations does not invalidate (rather, complements) other advice on preparing scientific presentations 2 , 3 , 4 and thesis defenses more specifically 5 . It is all very sound advice! For instance, once you have the structure of your Swath and Dive defense presentation, you could use the NABC technique to ensure that the Need, Approach, Benefits and Competition of each of your knowledge contributions are adequately emphasized. And you can rehearse intensively, and with an audience able to come up with nasty questions. And so on…

May you defend your thesis broadly and deeply!

Do you know other defense presentation structures that work really well in your discipline? Have you used Swath and Dive in your own defense successfully? Let us know (and share your examples) in the comments area below! (or leave a voice message)

Header image by DALL-E

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press. ↩︎

Carter, M. (2013). Designing science presentations: A visual guide to figures, papers, slides, posters, and more (First edition). Elsevier/Academic Press. ↩︎

Anholt, R. R. H. (2009). Dazzle ’Em with Style: The Art of Oral Scientific Presentation (2nd ed). Elsevier, Ebsco Publishing [distributor]. ↩︎

Alley, M. (2013). The craft of scientific presentations: Critical steps to succeed and critical errors to avoid (Second edition). Springer. ↩︎

Davis, M., Davis, K. J., & Dunagan, M. M. (2012). Scientific papers and presentations (Third edition). Elsevier/Academic Press. ↩︎

• Dissertation
• Communication

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile

Preparing for your PhD thesis defence

As you start thinking about the end stages of your PhD, it’s important to understand the processes and timelines related to the thesis defence so that your degree completion is not delayed. Even if your thesis defence seems far away, there are several planning considerations you can consider early on to help the end stages of your PhD go smoothly.

On this page you will find videos, tools, and information about what the PhD thesis defence is , timelines for the PhD thesis defence , and tips for a successful PhD thesis defence .

All PhD students should also ensure that they read the PhD thesis examination regulations and review the thesis preparation guidelines prior to their oral defence. If your thesis defence will be conducted remotely, you should also review the process for a remote thesis defence .

What is the PhD defence?

Understanding the purpose, processes and possible outcomes of the thesis defence can help you feel more prepared for the defence itself. In this video, you’ll learn about what the defence is, who’s there, what happens, and the deliberation and range of possible outcomes.

Transcript - Demystifying the thesis defence at University of Waterloo (PDF)

You may wish to learn more about some of the topics discussed in this video. Here are some helpful links to learn more:

Examination committee members (including the external examiner): Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on the  PhD thesis examining committee for more information about the committee members, including information about the external examiner and conflicts of interest.

• Closed thesis defences and non-disclosure agreements: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on guidelines for thesis examination without public disclosure for more information about closed thesis examinations.
• Thesis defence decisions and outcomes: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on  decisions for additional information about decisions and outcomes.
• Thesis submission: Visit the thesis submission webpage for information about the thesis submission process, including approvals that must be obtained before submitting your thesis.
• UWSpace: Visit the Library’s UWSpace webpage for information about what UWSpace is and how to submit, or deposit, your thesis to UWSpace.

Timeline to defence

Early planning considerations.

Well before your defence date, there are several considerations to think about that can help make the end stages of your degree go smoothly and ensure your defence date and degree completion are not delayed:

• Being aware of formatting requirements will save you time on revisions later on – the last thing you want to be doing before submitting your thesis to UWSpace is updating page numbers or your table of contents! Consider using the Microsoft Word or LaTeX thesis template produced by Information Systems & Technology. 
• The Dissertation Boot Camp can help you develop effective writing practices and strategies for completing your thesis, while the three-part Rock Your Thesis workshop series will provide practical guidance for planning, writing, revising, and submitting your thesis project. You can also book an individual appointment to do backwards planning with an advisor. They can help you utilize the planning tools most effectively, while providing hands-on guidance and feedback.  
• If you are using third-party content, including your own previously published work in your thesis, or seeking intellectual property protection (for yourself or another involved party), there may be implications for your thesis or defence. Learn more about copyright for your thesis , and email [email protected] for help with copyright questions related to your thesis.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, you may require approval from your entire committee, or just your supervisor. Ensure you talk with your supervisor and/or committee early on to confirm processes and timelines, so you’re not surprised later.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, your supervisor may select an external examiner themselves, or they may seek your input. Talk to your supervisor early on about this process, as in some faculties the external examiner may need to be vetted and approved as early as the term before you wish to defend. Remember that there are conflict of interest guidelines around the appointment of the external examiner , and the PhD candidate should not be in communication with the external examiner prior to the defence.
• A PhD thesis must be on display for a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the defence date. To accommodate, you may need to submit your thesis as early as 6-8 weeks prior to your defence. Review your faculty specific backwards planning tool for the thesis submission deadline in your faculty and learn more about the display period in the PhD thesis examination regulations.
• After your successful thesis defence, you will likely have some required revisions to your thesis. It’s important to understand revision timelines , especially if you’re hoping to become “degree complete” before a tuition refund or convocation deadline. Find tuition refund and convocation deadlines in the important dates calendar .
• Following your thesis defence, there are several steps to be taken before your final, approved thesis is accepted in UWSpace. Ensure that you’re aware of these thesis submission steps and timelines in advance.

Backwards planning tools

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs, in collaboration with the Faculties, have prepared faculty specific backwards planning tools to help PhD candidates map out the timelines related to their thesis defence and degree completion.

Select your faculty below to download a PDF copy of the backwards planning tool. We encourage you to discuss your ideal timelines with your supervisor(s) and your department graduate program co-ordinator.

• Faculty of Health backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Arts backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Engineering backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Environment backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Mathematics backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Science backwards planning tool (PDF)

Tips for success

The PhD thesis defence is the culmination of years of hard work! The tips outlined in this video, compiled from recent PhD graduates and experienced thesis defence chairs, cover tips for preparing for your defence, day-of logistics, and defending successfully.

Transcript - Your Thesis Defence: Tips for Success (PDF)

Will your PhD thesis defence be held remotely? We’ve compiled additional tips for success specifically related to the remote defence.

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Additional Information

• Graduate Programs
• Doctoral Examinations (Pre-Candidacy)
• Ph.D. Sample Timeline
• Advancing to Candidacy (Ph.D.)
• Ph.D. Dissertation Defense, Exam and Filing
• Master's Degree
• Academic Standards
• Academic Calendar
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Registration Procedures

Ph.D. Dissertation and Final Examination

Ph.d. dissertation defense, exam, and filing instructions (updated september 28, 2023).

Dissertation Defense and Examination (Ph.D.)

The dissertation and defense are the culminating projects of the Ph.D. degree. The student is encouraged to discuss with members of the degree committee both the substance and the preparation of the dissertation well in advance of the planned date of dissertation defense and final examination.

The Ph.D. final defense and examination consists of an open seminar on the dissertation work followed by a closed examination by the degree committee.  During the examination, the student is expected to explain the significance of the dissertation research, justify the methods employed, and defend the conclusions reached. 

The defense consists of an open seminar by the candidate followed by questions from the audience (approximately 1 hour). The open session is followed by a closed session of the candidate and degree committee members (examination portion). The entire defense and exam may not be longer than three hours.

At the conclusion of the exam, the committee shall vote on whether both the written dissertation and the student's performance are satisfactory to earn a Ph.D. degree from the University of California.

The presentation slides from our PhD Graduation Filing & Procedures Workshop are available to download here: phd_time_to_degree_-_preparing_for_graduation.pdf

Ph.D. Dissertation Defense, Exam and Filing Procedure

• Please visit http://graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/faculty-staff-resources/forms-publications for Ph.D./M.S. Degree Application Forms and Guidelines.
• Complete the Graduate Student Graduation Application during appropriate filing period (Fall: February 16-September 15; Spring: September 16th-February 15; Summer: September 16-June 15).  The application is available on the student portal under “MyStudentRecord.” No signatures are required.
• A defendable copy of your dissertation should be sent to your committee members at least three weeks in advance of their defense date.
• Complete Exam/Defense Date Submission webform to notify SoE Graduate Staff of your defense date. 
• Please create your defense flyer announcement and submit it   at least 2 weeks prior to your examination date. We will post your seminar announcement to the campus Event Calendar , and send out the announcement to your graduate program one (1) week prior to your examination date. Click here for available flyer templates . 
• At least one (1) week prior to your examination, you and your committee chair will receive an email with documents required to administer the examination. These documents include your current UC Merced transcripts, preliminary examination results (if applicable), Qualifying Examination Report, Approved Advancement to Candidacy Form, and the Report on Final Examination for the Ph.D. Degree Form. The committee chair will be responsible for submitting the signed Report on Final Examination for the Ph.D. Degree Form to the Graduate Staff  via email at [email protected] within 48 hours of the completed examination.
• Your signature page will need to be submitted to the Graduate Division.  Please see information below regarding acceptable approvals/signatures. Submit signature page to [email protected] along with acceptable approvals.
• Make any corrections/edits to final dissertation.
• Upload to UC Merced Proquest website by deadline (please refer to  http://graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/current-students/calendar-and-deadlines )
• Submit dissertation signature page by deadline (please refer to  http://graduatedivision.ucmerced.edu/current-students/calendar-and-deadlines ). Please review information below on acceptable signature/approvals for all forms. You must submit to [email protected] for processing.

Graduate Division Acceptable Approvals/Signatures

1. Adobe Signature - Adobe signature with a scanned image of a wet signature. Please see Adobe's Quick Start Guide, step 4.c .

2. UC Merced Email - Forms should be completed online and forwarded as an email attachment to the appropriate persons for approval. Signers should indicate, "I approve" or "I do not approve" and add any notes they wish in the body of the email, and then forward it (with form attached) to the next person for approval via UCM email. The email approvals should be submitted through a single email trail. The final person to approve/disapprove should forward the form and email trail to [email protected] , with a copy to the school's graduate coordinator ( [email protected] ).

3. Wet Signature/Copy of Wet Signature - Traditional original ink signature on paper.

Please note: Forms submitted to Graduate Division without acceptable approvals/signatures will be considered incomplete and will NOT be processed.  Forms must be emailed to [email protected] . When a form is processed the student will receive an email notification to their UCM email account.

Additional Links

• Executive Leadership
• University Library
• School of Engineering
• School of Natural Sciences
• School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts
• Ernest & Julio Gallo Management Program
• Division of Graduate Education
• Division of Undergraduate Education

Administration

• Office of the Chancellor
• Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Equity, Justice and Inclusive Excellence
• External Relations
• Finance & Administration
• Physical Operations, Planning and Development
• Student Affairs
• Research and Economic Development
• Office of Information Technology

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Rd. Merced, CA 95343 Telephone: (209) 228-4400

• © 2024
• About UC Merced
• Privacy/Legal
• Site Feedback
• Accessibility

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 30 March 2020

How to defend a PhD remotely

• Alyssa Frederick 0

Alyssa Frederick is a postdoctoral scholar at the Bodega Marine Laboratory in Bodega Bay, California, part of the University of California, Davis.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

In November 2019, I conducted my PhD defence using the videoconferencing software Zoom.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00971-z

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Related Articles

• Peer review
• Conferences and meetings

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

China promises more money for science in 2024

News 08 MAR 24

One-third of Indian STEM conferences have no women

News 15 NOV 23

How remote conferencing broadened my horizons and opened career paths

Career Column 04 AUG 23

Faculty Positions& Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Optical and Electronic Information, HUST

Job Opportunities: Leading talents, young talents, overseas outstanding young scholars, postdoctoral researchers.

Wuhan, Hubei, China

School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Defending a PhD thesis like a boss!- an in-depth Guide

A thesis defense is a two-way process of PhD evaluation, a session during which experts ask questions related to the PhD dissertation for awarding a PhD degree.  

Defending a PhD thesis or dissertation is the last station of the PhD. The process of a doctorate is different! Even though prospective candidates don’t need to appear in the written examination, the thesis defense is a must!

It’s a process occurring behind closed doors or openly (sometimes!), under the supervision of subject experts or all, to award someone a prestigious doctor of philosophy degree .

PhD- the Philosophia doctor is a path full of complications and problems. Starting from admission to writing a thesis or viva, a candidate has to achieve every milestone to move forward towards a PhD. 

Broadly, a good graduation or master’s score, completion of the entrance exam, course work, PhD thesis, publication in a peer-reviewed journal, PhD presentation and well-completed PhD research are criteria to appear in the PhD defense. 

If a candidate fails to achieve any of the requirements given above, he or she can’t go-ahead. The PhD is all about research, passion, knowledge on one side whilst depression, lack of confidence, loneliness, frustration on the other side, nonetheless, it is a fun journey. 

Defending a PhD thesis at terminal can relax a doctoral student, although should not be taken for granted. 

The present piece of content is all about defending your PhD thesis, what is it and how to appear. I will also give you some tips that help you to successfully complete it. 

What is a thesis defense? 

The thesis defense is the terminal process of discussing ‘research’ to award the PhD degree. It is also referred to as PhD viva too; however, it is more a discussion session than a viva. 

A prospective student has to appear in the thesis defense along with the PhD thesis, a presentation and all other PhD related documentation. A student also has to carry all the materials and proofs that can be used to convenience a supervisor or expert to award the doctorate. 

The entire process is verbal. Two external subject experts, a guide, and a university VC conducts the process, note that other students can also appear in the PhD defense process too as a guest. 

Universities usually conduct close viva sessions to avoid ‘personal bullying’ during the thesis defense. 

During the process, questions are based on the thesis content, topic and subject of the prospective student’s research. The objective of conducting the defense session is to check the knowledge of a student, research aptitude and how he or he had done their research. 

It is a kind of evaluation process in which experts ask questions and point out gaps in research presented by a student.

Read more: 10 Genuine Suggestions to Design a PhD Title .

What is the process of thesis defense? 

The process of PhD thesis defense starts with the general introduction of experts followed by the presentation session. A candidate has to present their thesis in a PowerPoint presentation, keynotes or google slides. 10 to 20 minutes are alloted to present the work in 15 to 25 slides. 

Soon after, experts ask questions related to research. Several of them are, 

What is the purpose of the present research? 

Why is the present topic chosen? 

What is the study population and why only those are selecting 

What are the outcomes of the present work? 

Why are the results or outcomes important? 

What are the societal benefits of the present work? 

How or what the present research contributes to the present knowledge? 

These are the common questions asked to know the quality, quantity and strength of the research one has conducted. 

The process is of two types; close thesis defense viva and open thesis defense viva. 

In the close thesis defense viva, only a subject expert and a PhD supervisor conduct the entire process of the thesis defense, no one is allowed to interfere in it. A student can defend their thesis confidently, on the positive side, however, sometimes the integrity of the session doesn’t maintain due to lack of a monitoring body. 

During the open thesis defense, anyone can appear in the viva session including students of master’s and graduation. Also, anyone can ask questions related to the topic. 

Open thesis defense sometimes makes things harder for the prospective student. Which type of viva or defense system you have to face will depend on the university. The process and type of thesis defense vary from country to country and university to university.  

2 to 5 examiners or external evaluators are invited for a PhD thesis defense session by the university. The criteria to select examiners for the same are; they should be not from the university, they are experts in a related subject, they are working outside the university. 

University allows a PhD supervisor to the defense session but they can’t participate in the discussion. Examiner examines the thesis and will randomly ask queries to the presenter. 

Who conducts a thesis defense? 

The thesis defense of master’s, M Phil or PhD is held by the university under the vigilance of the supervisor for the student appearing in the degree. 

A PhD supervisor invites two or three other experts of the subject to conduct the session, university presentative or vice-chancellor closely monitors the entire process, if present. 

Related article: How much does a PhD Degree Cost in the USA, UK and India?

How long a thesis defense occurs? 

Per student 10 to 20 minutes are allotted to defend the thesis, however, it may vary, depending on how long a verbal questioning session happens. If it is interesting, it may take up to 2 hours. 

Sometimes, experts wind things in 30 minutes too; that depends on how neatly you have written your thesis and how beautifully you have given your presentation. Still, a few questions are common and asked in every thesis defense. 

Usually 20 minutes to 2 hours it takes to complete the thesis defense. 

What happens after the completion of the thesis defense? 

Defending a thesis isn’t like giving a written exam, which means the results are not like ‘pass’ or ‘fail’. The results are like how excellently one has done their doctorate- research, thesis and presentation. 

There are three possibilities after completing the PhD viva or thesis defense.

• First, you have successfully completed it.
• Second, you have failed in defending the thesis- revision required. 
• Third, there are chances of improvement- minor revision required. 

When you present your thesis excellently, write the dissertation in a proper way and accurately- like a professional writer, proofread it correctly, complete all the objectives mentioned in the thesis, done research in a proper way, you probably come in the first case. 

A PhD degree will be awarded to you soon! 

If a thesis is not written in a good way, not all the objectives are completed, not published a paper, or fails to write a thesis completely or it is partially incomplete, you fail in defending the thesis, need revision.

In this case, you have to re-appear in the Ph.D. to complete the incomplete work. 

The third case is a bit different in which a student is advised to do some minor changes and improvements to make their own thesis much better. Usually, re-viva is not conducted in these cases. 

In the second case, in which a student fails to defend their thesis, re-viva and second round of thesis defense will be conducted after six months or a year. 

Note that awarding the thesis entirely depends on the external examiner. 

Also read: PhD vs PsyD- Differences .

Can anyone fail in the thesis defense? 

I can say yes! But not exactly because it is not an examination. A candidate has to appear again after sometimes to defend the thesis. Here are the cases in which we can say, a candidate failed thesis defense.

• Improper, incorrect or partial thesis. 
• Incomplete objectives. 
• Incomplete research work. 
• Lack of significant outcomes. 
• No publication 
• Fail to answer questions during the defense. 

Practically it is not considered as ‘fail’, re-viva or another round of thesis defense will be conducted. 

Tips to successfully defend the thesis for PhD: 

When you will be on your presentation, an examiner opens your thesis; thoughts of curiosity, nervousness, excitement and energy will flow around you, all at once. 

In these conditions, even if your preparation is excellent, a small mistake can ruin everything for you. 

You have to balance your positive as well as negative emotions at the same time. Here are some of the tips that definitely help you to defend your PhD thesis successfully. 

Fill yourself with positivity: 

You are very near to your goal, one step ahead of getting a degree- an utmost academic honor- the PhD. Surely, you need to balance everything, as I said, but to do so, you need to behave positively. 

Even if you know the gaps, problems, limitations and problems of your PhD thesis, yourself or your knowledge, you need to keep calm and behave like everything will be on your side. 

Only you know what is not perfect in your presentation or thesis, why to show it to others! Stay calm, focus, confident and positive like everything is perfect there. 

If you still feel so negative, imagine there are so many students in the world who have not even reached this level! You are here, on the last step of the PhD- feel proud of yourself. 

Related article: Writing a Research Paper for a Ph.D. Dissertation.

Dress well, look well: 

To feel confident and positive, you have to look better. Wear a good, decent and formal dress, shave your beard or trim it, style your hair and polish your shoes. If you will look good, a positive and joyful atmosphere will be constructed in the room that will definitely help you. 

Don’t look tired, hopeless, restless, sleepless. 

Checklist all things: 

A couple of things are required during the PhD viva or thesis defense session. One is the presentation and the second is the thesis. In addition to this, don’t forget to take other documents related to your PhD like your plagiarism clearance certificate, your registration certificate and even your logbook. 

One can’t appear in the thesis defense session without a presentation and thesis. 

Other things are secondary in this case. 

Also read: How to Avoid Plagiarism in Your PhD Thesis?

Prepare a good presentation: 

Before preparing a PhD presentation, you need to know in which format the university allows to present the thesis. However, the globally accepted format is Microsoft Powerpoint. 

Prepare a good, decent and professional PhD presentation of 10 to 15 slides and save it in multiple formats. Include only necessary information, I know it is very difficult to summarize the 4000 to 5000-word essay in 10 slides. 

Also, don’t forget to include material, methods, theory, results and outcome of the research, those things are very essential. Make your presentation correct with your PhD supervisor before appearing in the thesis defense. 

Make a backup: 

What if your presentation will not run on the day of defending the thesis? What if you lost your hardcopy of the thesis? that is not good, right! 

 You are a PhD student , above all, out of the box thinking ability and good analytic thinking, how can you forget to make backups? 

Backup your presentation in a flash drive, cloud storage and email. Prepare presentations in multiple formats.

Make the back of the thesis soft copy as well and store it on different devices that are easily accessible in case of emergency. In addition to this, also prepare a rough and unbounded draft of the thesis hardcopy as a backup. 

Control yourself: 

Students who have done their PhD sincerely are confident about their work but it is very important to control yourself during the thesis defense. In any harsh condition don’t lose your calm, don’t be aggressive.

Even if you know that the expert is wrong- that is a rare case scenario, respect their opinion and behave accordingly. See it is obvious, no one knows more than you and your guide about your topic.

Try to explain things to the panel member, if it can’t work, leave it, respect their opinion and take it as suggestions. 

Read more: 10 PhD Programs You can choose to Study- A Comprehensive Guide .

Answer to the point: 

Sometimes it happens that you explain things more than the experts’ needs. There are drawbacks of explaining things elaborately, they can trap you! 

As I said, pay attention to the question asked by the expert and try to answer what they want, not more than that. Explain things if they don’t understand. 

Do this if you don’t have an answer: 

Experts’ duties are to find gaps and problems in your research so that they can find knowledge actually required. So it is obvious, they confuse you, and ask questions which you don’t know. 

 Don’t get nervous or panic, if you don’t know the answers. Take a deep breath and admit that you don’t have the answer or don’t have an idea about that. To support this situation, you can even make an assumption that this might happen or this will be the reason or give a probability.

See thesis defense is not like a viva, questions will be intellectual and will challenge your knowledge and thinking every time for sure. You have to show them your ability to think differently, not what to already know! 

Also read: 50 various PhD degree full forms .

Do this if something wrong happens! 

Days change, some are good, rest are bad. Things will be on your side someday, or not on other days. What you will do if something wrong happens whilst defending the thesis? 

Your presentation may not work, You lost your thesis, a big problem with the thesis- you didn’t know and problems in findings of results; these are some common problems I had seen in PhD viva. 

So you have to prepare for that, what to answer in those conditions. Anyone can make mistakes, simply apologize and request panel members that you will fix the problem soon. See, you have to act as per the situation, I can not tell you what you say in which conditions. 

For instance, if your presentation is not working or electricity is not there on the day of the presentation simply apologize for that, present it with the available utilities like chalk and blackboard.

The important thing is don’t panic, apologize first, and request to continue the presentation. For instance, if there is a major issue in the thesis, request the examiner that you will fix it, please allow you to continue the presentation. Try to complete your presentation, anyhow, who knows if they will impress. 

Be prepared for the most common questions: 

 The 10th tip is very useful and kind of a hack for you. There are several questions asked routinely during every thesis defense session. For instance,  what is the purpose of your research? How outcomes help society? Why have you chosen this topic? Why have you selected this technique for your work? What are the applications of your research? Like that. 

Be prepared for these questions, a few of them will be asked during the session. Then after the discussion will pick the heat, and your thinking ability will be tested. 

Read more: What is PhD?- History, Definition, Origin, Requirement, Fees, Duration and Process .

Conclusion: 

Thesis or dissertation and PhD viva or thesis defense aren’t mandatory for all. Some professional degrees seek only internships for the award of PhD or doctorate. IN PhD in medicine or psychology, thesis or viva isn’t conducted, though the criteria are decided by the universities and hence vary greatly. 

Still, the thesis defense is a common practice performed to award PhD, M Phil or post-graduation degree. 

Dr. Tushar Chauhan is a Scientist, Blogger and Scientific-writer. He has completed PhD in Genetics. Dr. Chauhan is a PhD coach and tutor.

Share this:

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via Email

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Related posts.

Grammarly: Your PhD writing assistant

Why is it called a Doctor of Philosophy?

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Q. PhD Thesis Defense

When the Thesis Advisor, Thesis Committee, and the student decide that the research has been satisfactorily completed, the student will prepare a dissertation thesis in accordance with Graduate School regulations (see A Guide to Preparing Your Doctoral Dissertation ). ( Note: This webpage is long, you must scroll down to see all info including deadlines.) Dissertations must acknowledge contributions received from other individuals, including co-authors of published work that appears in the dissertation. Examples of the types of contributions that should be acknowledged in the document include those who helped design the research, execute the research, analyze the data, and/or writing, proofing, or copy editing the manuscript. This is in accordance with UW Graduate School Policy UW-1248 .

If the PhD Thesis Defense is not completed within five years of obtaining dissertator status, the student must re-take the  Preliminary Exam , or ask for an extension from the Graduate School and notify the DGS of this request). If changes in the Thesis Committee are made after a warrant has been requested from the Graduate School, then a revised form must be signed and submitted to the Graduate School for approval.

I. Requirements

At least 6 weeks prior to defense date:.

• Schedule the defense with your committee and obtain a room for your defense.

At least 4 weeks prior to Defense date:

• Submit a warrant request . You must have your dissertation title ready to request a warrant.

At least 2 weeks prior to Defense date:

• Submit a copy of your Thesis to all members of your Thesis Committee.
• A Thesis Committee member has the right to remove themself from your Thesis Committee if  you do not follow this step.
• Email Debra King ( [email protected] ) and Sally Griffith-Oh ( [email protected] ) a notice or flier about your final PhD Defense that minimally includes the Thesis Title, Abstract, Author, Date/Time, and Location. You may wish to include in this notice or flier graphics such as photos, a graphic abstract, or other images that celebrate you and/or your work.

At the PhD Defense:

• The PhD Defense is comprised of two components: an open and closed session
• The open session consists of a formal public seminar (approximately 45-50 min) followed by a short public question and answer period
• The closed session immediately follows the open session and consists of an examination period wherein only the examinee and Thesis Committee are present

Following the PhD Defense:

• Follow the steps outlined at https://grad.wisc.edu/current-students/doctoral-guide/
• Final grade reports must be completed for all courses in progress when you complete the PhD and deposit the dissertation at a time that is not at the conclusion of a semester. In this instance, see the GPC for the appropriate forms.
• Following your successful PhD defense, you must email the Graduate Program Manager, Derek Zimmerman , to initiate process of collecting electronic signatures on the Grad School Warrant.

II. Material Submissions

• If your advisor requires it, please provide them a bound copy of the Final Thesis.
• If your post-graduation employment plans or contact information has changed since filling out your warrant request, please let the GPC know.

III. Degree Completion Letter

Official degree conferral only occurs at the end of each semester. If needed, once all degree requirements are completed, you may request a degree completion letter by following the process outlined at https://grad.wisc.edu/documents/certification-of-graduation/

If you need a letter confirming your planned timeline for completing the dissertation defense and/or dissertation deposit please reach out to the graduate program manager.

Pharmsci Handbook

• A. Preface: Guide for a Successful PhD Career More
• B. Orientation Information More
• C. Orientation Advisor More
• D. Timeline for Progress Towards the PhD Degree More
• E. Lab Rotations More
• F. Lab Safety More
• G. Choosing a Thesis Advisor More
• H. Financial/Benefits More
• I. Registration More
• J. Credit and Course Requirements More
• K. Course Descriptions More
• L. Thesis Committee More
• M. Initial Thesis Committee Meeting More
• N. Research Presentation (Seminar) Requirements More
• O. The Preliminary Exam More
• P. Annual Progress Report More
• Q. PhD Thesis Defense More
• R. Master of Science (MS) (Research Track) Degree Requirements More
• S. Student-Thesis Advisor Concerns More
• T. Faculty Responsibilities More
• U. Student Involvement; Professional Development More
• V. Ethics/Responsible Conduct of Research More
• W. Program Contacts More
• X. Appendix 1: Forms More
• Y. Appendix 2: Resources More
• Z. Appendix 3: Grievance Policy More

• International

Trump defense cross-examines Michael Cohen in hush money trial

By CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle and Jeremy Herb in the courthouse

Key takeaways from the first day of Michael Cohen's cross-examination

From CNN's Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle and Kara Scannell

Donald Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche began his confrontation with  Michael Cohen  on Tuesday by throwing the former fixer’s language back in his face.

Blanche confirmed the two had never spoken, but asked Cohen whether he knew who he was already since Cohen “went on TikTok and called me a crying little sh*t” just before the trial began.

“Sounds like something I would say,” responded Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer.

The question set the tone for the cross-examination of the Manhattan district attorney’s key witness in the  hush money trial . For roughly two hours, Blanche began a cross-examination to discredit Cohen’s allegations against Trump. Blanche confirmed his questioning will take most of the day when court picks up on Thursday.

Here are the key takeaways :

• Blanche tries to use Cohen’s words to discredit him: Blanche’s opening question was just the first in a series of colorful quotes from Cohen that Blanche raised to try to paint Cohen as someone who hated Trump and who was hellbent on getting revenge while making money off the former president and trying to get his prison sentence reviewed. Blanche had plenty of material to work with. Cohen has written two books and recorded hundreds of podcasts. The upshot of the questioning was that Cohen was making a living off attacking Trump after he lost his law license following his 2018 guilty plea to charges including campaign finance violations linked to the hush money scheme.
• Cohen's shifting views: Blanche pinpointed the shift from admiration to hatred of Trump in the summer of 2018 when Cohen turned on his former boss. Blanche read a list of compliments Cohen paid Trump publicly in 2015 and 2016, including calling Trump “a good man,” “a man who cares deeply about his family” and “a man who tells it straight.” Trump’s attorney pushed Cohen on his motivations since turning on the former president, suggesting Cohen is now driven by revenge and money.
• Cohen walks jurors through his decision to cease being loyal to Trump: In the morning, prosecutors wrapped up their questioning of Cohen, walking him in detail through his decision to stop being loyal to Trump – and to stop lying for Trump – when he pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018. Ultimately, Cohen said a conversation with his family in August 2018 convinced him to change his tune, plead guilty and tell the truth about Trump.
• More Trump allies flock to court: Tuesday saw the biggest group of politicians making the trek to the Manhattan courthouse to show their support of Trump. The list included Trump’s onetime presidential-rival-turned-VP-hopeful North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, along with House Speaker Mike Johnson, Florida Reps. Byron Donalds and Cory Mills, and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. 

Analysis: Unlike Michael Cohen, other Trump associates got pardons when they faced prison time

Analysis from CNN's Zachary B. Wolf

After watching his former fixer Michael Cohen testify against him on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump is expected to attend a fundraiser in New York City co-hosted by Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father, whom  he pardoned in 2020 .

Trying to intimidate his sister from testifying before a grand jury, the elder Kushner set up a sort of rogue sting operation in which he meant to videotape his sister’s brother with a prostitute and then send the tape to his sister.

At least those are the broad outlines of the tale as told by  former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie , who was then the US attorney for the state who prosecuted the case.

Cohen is rare in the universe of Trump associates since he both turned on Trump and went to prison. Many other Trump aides and associates who faced jail eventually   got pardons or clemency and still support the former president.

• Paul Manafort is still in Trump’s camp despite spending years in jail. Manafort ran Trump’s 2016 campaign for a time, but then later, while Trump was president,  Manafort – who made money as a foreign lobbyist – was convicted  for federal tax evasion, among other things. Manafort served two years and was ultimately pardoned before Trump left office.
• Steve Bannon , the former Trump White House chief strategist turned right-wing provocateur, obtained a Trump pardon before he could be tried for allegedly defrauding donors of contributions intended to help build a wall on the US border with Mexico. He may still go to prison after failing to comply with a congressional subpoena after the pardon.
• Trump commuted the sentence of his longtime friend  Roger Stone , the political operative who was convicted by a jury of, among other things, obstructing the Russia investigation.
• Retired Gen. Michael Flynn , Trump's first national security adviser who was charged with lying to investigators, also received a wide-ranging pardon. Flynn had entered a guilty plea and then tried to rescind it, and the yearslong legal saga hung over Trump’s presidency. Trump  issued the Flynn pardon  shortly after losing the 2020 presidential election.

Ohio senator says he was at Trump trial as a friend because it's "lonely to sit up there by yourself"

From CNN's Kit Maher

Ohio Sen. JD Vance said he attended Donald Trump's hush money trial on Tuesday to support the former president.

“I was there to support a friend,” Vance told Fox News. “This is a very depressing way to spend five, six weeks of your life when you know that you're innocent, as Donald Trump knows that he is,” Vance said. “Recognizing that sometimes it's a little bit lonely to sit up there by yourself, I offered to come in and maybe just be a friendly face in the courtroom.”

Vance reiterated how he has “never spoken” to Trump about being his vice president. He said the running mate speculation did not come up when he appeared in court with Sen. Tommy Tuberville. Other potential vice president contenders, such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, were also in attendance.

“I see these same media reports that everyone else does,” Vance said. “I certainly want to be helpful to the president, however, whatever form that takes, but I have never spoken to Donald Trump about becoming his vice president.” 

Using the same language as Burgum, Vance described Trump’s ex-attorney Michael Cohen as a “serial perjurer.” He also argued that the gag order was an insult to Trump and the American people.

What to know about the 3 other criminal cases involving Donald Trump

From CNN’s Devan Cole, Amy O'Kruk and Curt Merrill 

The hush money criminal trial against former President Donald Trump is one of  four criminal cases  he faces while juggling his presidential campaign.

The former president faces at least  88 charges  over the four criminal indictments in Georgia, New York, Washington, DC, and Florida. Trump has pleaded not guilty to every charge in these cases. 

Here's a recap of each case: 

• Hush money:  Trump was first indicted in March 2023 by the Manhattan district attorney on state charges related to a hush-money payment to an adult film star in 2016. Prosecutors allege Trump was part of an illegal conspiracy to  undermine  the integrity of the 2016 election. Further, they allege he was part of an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, including the $130,000 payment. 
• Classified documents:  Trump was indicted in June 2023 by a federal grand jury in Miami for taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. The National Archives said in early 2022 that at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from the estate, including  some that were classified . The charges were brought by special counsel Jack Smith. However,  Judge Aileen Cannon  has  indefinitely postponed the trial , citing significant issues around classified evidence that would need to be worked out before the federal criminal case goes to a jury.
• Federal election interference:  Smith separately charged the former president last August with four crimes over his efforts to reverse the 2020 election results. The indictment alleges Trump and a co-conspirator "attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them ... to delay the certification" of the election. That case is currently on hold  as the Supreme Court  weighs Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the matter. The court held a hearing on the issue of immunity in late April. Every day the court doesn’t issue a decision will play into Trump’s strategy of delay, jeopardizing the likelihood that Smith can bring his case to trial before the November election. 
• Fulton County:  State prosecutors in Georgia brought a similar election subversion case against Trump and others. An Atlanta-based grand jury on August 14, 2023, indicted Trump and 18 others on state charges stemming from their alleged efforts to overturn the former president’s 2020 electoral defeat. A trial date has not yet been set in that case, and the Georgia Court of Appeals will consider an effort by Trump and his co-defendants to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.

Read more about  the four criminal cases  Trump faces.  

What happened in court: Trump’s defense goes after Michael Cohen during his second day on the stand

From CNN's Elise Hammond

Donald Trump’s lawyers began their cross-examination of Michael Cohen, a key witness in the hush money trial against the former president.

Before the defense began trying to poke holes in Cohen’s credibility, the prosecution finished its direct examination during which he described the moment he decided to stop lying for Trump.

Here’s everything you need to know about what happened today:

Prosecutors finish direct questioning:

• Payments to Cohen: Cohen described emailing an invoice, which included two $35,000 payments for January and February, shortly after a meeting with Trump to confirm how he would be reimbursed for the payment he fronted for Daniels. The jury saw copies of a check sub from March that says the payment is for a retainer agreement , which Cohen testified was not true . The prosecution showed a check from April that was signed by Trump.
• Reimbursement paid out: After being paid out the installments equaling $420,000 , Cohen says he was never paid any more money from Trump personally or the Trump Organization. He testified that he thinks he spent less than 10 hours on work for Trump in 2017 but did get other consulting clients .
• Pressure to lie: Cohen confirmed that in 2018 he continued to pressure people like attorney Keith Davidson to lie about the deals with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels . He said he continued to lie “out of loyalty and in order to protect him ." He said he spoke with Trump about false statements he made to the media.
• FBI raid: Cohen says he was “concerned, despondent, angry” when he was  raided by the FBI in April 2018. When he spoke to Trump about the raid, Trump said, “’ Don’t worry. I’m the president of the United States,’” according to Cohen. He said he felt reassured after that conversation and continued to be in Trump’s camp.
• Meeting Robert Costello: Cohen said he met criminal defense attorney Robert Costello who offered a “back-channel communication” to Trump that would use Rudy Giuliani as a middleman. Cohen said Costello’s emails were part of a “pressure campaign” to make sure he stayed loyal to Trump as there was concern he might retain another lawyer for the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
• Turning from Trump: Cohen said he pleaded guilty after talking to his family and deciding he “ would not lie for President Trump anymore.” He ticked off his guilty pleas — both related and unrelated to Trump — including tax evasion and campaign finance violations. He called one of the days he pleaded the “worst day of my life.”

Defense starts cross-examination:

• Cohen’s social media posts: The cross-examination started with a fiery back and forth as Trump's attorney Todd Blanche asked Cohen about comments he made on social media, including one in which he said Trump belongs in a cage . Cohen said the trial was personally important to him and answered “sure” when Blanche asked if he wanted Trump to be convicted.
• Financial benefits: Blanche also brought up instances where Cohen makes money — including podcasts and a TikTok account where he mentions Trump and has merchandise that features Trump . He also testified he made more than $3 million in sales of his two books.
• Cohen’s salary: Cohen testified that he also represented Trump’s family , including his wife and one of his sons. He testified that his salary was about $375,000 plus an annual bonus of about $150,000. Remember: At the heart of the case is a series of payments equaling $420,000 to Cohen. He says it was to reimburse him for the hush money he fronted to Daniels.
• Mueller investigation: Blanche walked Cohen through his interview with special counsel Robert Mueller . Cohen admitted he lied to Mueller’s teams to protect Trump before he decided to cooperate. The defense pointed out one of those instances, including when Cohen told the special counsel he did not recall speaking with Trump about the “Access Hollywood” tape, which goes against his previous testimony.
• Feelings about Trump: Speaking about Trump , Cohen said he “admired him tremendously."  Cohen later acknowledged that he changed his views about his former boss when Blanche pointed out Cohen’s 2019 comments to Congress that Trump had potentially committed a variety of financial crimes. 

What’s next: Cohen will be the last witness to testify for the prosecution, according to the court transcript. Blanche said he expects the cross-examination of Cohen “will continue until the end of the day Thursday,” according to the transcript. Blanche also said it is not clear if Trump would testify.

Gag order: Trump’s latest attempt to end the gag order against him in the hush money criminal trial was  denied  by a New York appeals court. Trump  said  that the gag order implemented by Judge Juan Merchan is unfair to him and should be lifted. The appeals court sided with Merchan, according to the order.

"Why are you making this about yourself?": Judge asks Trump attorney after opening question, transcript says

From CNN's Elizabeth Hartfield

After Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche jumped right into his cross-examination of Michael Cohen with a question about an expletive-laden description Cohen had given of Blanche on social media, Judge Juan Merchan called the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar.

"Why are you making this about yourself?" Merchan asked Blanche, according to the transcript of the first part of the afternoon session just circulated by the court. "I'm not making it about myself, your honor," Blanche replied. "I have a right to show this witness's bias, and he has expressed bias about the lawyers just because of who he represents," he said. 

The parties continued a back and forth for a brief period, the transcript shows, with Merchan ultimately saying, "Just don't make it about yourself. I am going to sustain the objection and instruct the jury. Please, don't make it about yourself."

As CNN's court team previously reported, he then sustained the objection in the courtroom. 

See courtroom sketches of Michael Cohen's testimony today in the Trump trial

No cameras are allowed inside the Manhattan courtroom where Donald Trump's hush money trial is underway, but sketch artists are capturing the scenes as Michael Cohen testifies while his former boss listens nearby.

Trump said today was a "very good day" while repeating his complaints about the trial

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

Former President Donald Trump said today was "a very good day" before he repeated his laments about the hush money trial that's in its fifth week.

Here's what he claimed while speaking to journalists in the Manhattan court hallway after the trial wrapped for the day:

• The trial is preventing him from being on the campaign trail: This has been a consistent complaint he's made. However, Trump is free to campaign on days when court is not in session — weekends and Wednesdays. "Can you believe I've been here five weeks instead of campaigning?" he said. The whole process is expected to take 6-8 weeks.
• The freezing room: He complained about the temperature in the court room , calling it an "ice box."
• The gag order forbids him to speak about "big portions" of the case: Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order , which narrowly restricts his out-of-court speech, does not broadly prevent Trump from talking. He is permitted to speak to the media, speak at campaign events, attack President Joe Biden and other political opponents, and even attack Judge Juan Merchan and the Manhattan district attorney behind the case. His gag order prevents him from speaking publicly or directing others to speak publicly about known or foreseeable witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, members of the district attorney’s staff and the court staff, or family members of any of these people, if those statements are made with the intent to interfere with the case.

Blanche believes he can finish cross-examination by the end of the day Thursday

Todd Blanche says he still believes he will finish cross-examination by the end of the day on Thursday.

"If I finish, it’s the end of the day I anticipate, your honor," the attorney for Donald Trump says.

Judge Juan Merchan responds, "No rush, take your time, do what you need to do."

Blanche also references their expert witness and asked the judge if they could discuss what is admissible in light of the judge's pretrial rulings.

Merchan says he will take it up at 4 p.m. ET on Thursday.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.