Bigger Hurdles: Proposal and mini viva

The new school term began on Monday and the dust has not yet settled, but 10.00am this morning was the time scheduled for my mini viva. It has been a busy couple of months. I gave my formal presentation of my proposal on the penultimate day of the summer term, then met a draft proposal deadline for my supervisor the day after we broke up. Much reading about methodology over the summer before two bound copies of the finished proposal were submitted last week (with a good twenty minutes to spare before the deadline, I might add).

I arrived in plenty of time to go over my notes and my proposal carefully. At 9.30am I reassured myself that in a couple of hours, whatever happened, it would all be over. I wasn't especially nervous; this was in the spirit of giving a taste of what the format of the actual viva would be like and provided a further opportunity to engage in healthy debate about aspects of the proposed research. As the 'invitation' explained: Always with the desire to have a good constructive discussion, the aim of the viva will be to clarify aspects of the proposal to help make sure it provides you with a basis for a workable bit of PhD research - with lines of enquiry likely to be similar to those that were raised during your recent proposal presentations, and generally taking up the different aspects of what makes a good workable proposal.

The first few questions began, 'Can you elaborate on...' and were fine and fair. I warmed to my themes. But, after that my terminology was questioned extensively, my research questions were pulled apart and my methodology was under fire. I faltered, I internally questioned my whole approach. Never has a sip of water tasted so good as at the end of the mini viva. It felt tough, very tough indeed.

I was sent away for twenty minutes whilst  it was discussed and, given the vigorous questioning, I feared the worst.  But - ultimately the comments were complimentary and I came away with a referral of five required responses, and a short turnaround time before submitting amendments to the proposal. They said:

The proposed research addresses an important area and you demonstrated a deep and reflexive knowledge of its complexities both in the written proposal and in the wide-ranging discussion that took place during the mini viva. The following requirements should help to consolidate these ideas with a view to embedding them more explicitly in the approach to data collection: 
1. Once the core terms/constructs addressed in the study have been finalized the title should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with these. You should also make sure there is no unintended hint of deficit.
2. The research questions should be revised to ensure best fit with the core constructs/terms and the methodological approach. Each one should be accompanied by a line or two of explanation so that the rationale underpinning the question is made explicit.
3. Develop and insert a diagrammatic representation of the research process so that it is clearer how the different elements and methods relate to the specific areas for exploration and intervention. Provide a page or two discussion on the methods chosen and why, linking this the literature and to two or three specific examples of focus group questions, areas for observation etc. 
4. Insert a single paragraph in Chapter One that highlights the school/research context in which the proposed research sits as discussed in the mini-viva.
5. Revise the timeline to ensure this fits with the timeline for obtaining ethics approval.

I think it felt good because it was hard. I feel as though I have survived a gladiatorial contest. I am exceedingly glad that it is done.

Now for ethical approval...