phd research proposal oral presentation

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

How to Make a Successful Research Presentation

Turning a research paper into a visual presentation is difficult; there are pitfalls, and navigating the path to a brief, informative presentation takes time and practice. As a TA for  GEO/WRI 201: Methods in Data Analysis & Scientific Writing this past fall, I saw how this process works from an instructor’s standpoint. I’ve presented my own research before, but helping others present theirs taught me a bit more about the process. Here are some tips I learned that may help you with your next research presentation:

More is more

In general, your presentation will always benefit from more practice, more feedback, and more revision. By practicing in front of friends, you can get comfortable with presenting your work while receiving feedback. It is hard to know how to revise your presentation if you never practice. If you are presenting to a general audience, getting feedback from someone outside of your discipline is crucial. Terms and ideas that seem intuitive to you may be completely foreign to someone else, and your well-crafted presentation could fall flat.

Less is more

Limit the scope of your presentation, the number of slides, and the text on each slide. In my experience, text works well for organizing slides, orienting the audience to key terms, and annotating important figures–not for explaining complex ideas. Having fewer slides is usually better as well. In general, about one slide per minute of presentation is an appropriate budget. Too many slides is usually a sign that your topic is too broad.

Limit the scope of your presentation

Don’t present your paper. Presentations are usually around 10 min long. You will not have time to explain all of the research you did in a semester (or a year!) in such a short span of time. Instead, focus on the highlight(s). Identify a single compelling research question which your work addressed, and craft a succinct but complete narrative around it.

You will not have time to explain all of the research you did. Instead, focus on the highlights. Identify a single compelling research question which your work addressed, and craft a succinct but complete narrative around it.

Craft a compelling research narrative

After identifying the focused research question, walk your audience through your research as if it were a story. Presentations with strong narrative arcs are clear, captivating, and compelling.

• Introduction (exposition — rising action)

Orient the audience and draw them in by demonstrating the relevance and importance of your research story with strong global motive. Provide them with the necessary vocabulary and background knowledge to understand the plot of your story. Introduce the key studies (characters) relevant in your story and build tension and conflict with scholarly and data motive. By the end of your introduction, your audience should clearly understand your research question and be dying to know how you resolve the tension built through motive.

• Methods (rising action)

The methods section should transition smoothly and logically from the introduction. Beware of presenting your methods in a boring, arc-killing, ‘this is what I did.’ Focus on the details that set your story apart from the stories other people have already told. Keep the audience interested by clearly motivating your decisions based on your original research question or the tension built in your introduction.

• Results (climax)

Less is usually more here. Only present results which are clearly related to the focused research question you are presenting. Make sure you explain the results clearly so that your audience understands what your research found. This is the peak of tension in your narrative arc, so don’t undercut it by quickly clicking through to your discussion.

• Discussion (falling action)

By now your audience should be dying for a satisfying resolution. Here is where you contextualize your results and begin resolving the tension between past research. Be thorough. If you have too many conflicts left unresolved, or you don’t have enough time to present all of the resolutions, you probably need to further narrow the scope of your presentation.

• Conclusion (denouement)

Return back to your initial research question and motive, resolving any final conflicts and tying up loose ends. Leave the audience with a clear resolution of your focus research question, and use unresolved tension to set up potential sequels (i.e. further research).

Use your medium to enhance the narrative

Visual presentations should be dominated by clear, intentional graphics. Subtle animation in key moments (usually during the results or discussion) can add drama to the narrative arc and make conflict resolutions more satisfying. You are narrating a story written in images, videos, cartoons, and graphs. While your paper is mostly text, with graphics to highlight crucial points, your slides should be the opposite. Adapting to the new medium may require you to create or acquire far more graphics than you included in your paper, but it is necessary to create an engaging presentation.

The most important thing you can do for your presentation is to practice and revise. Bother your friends, your roommates, TAs–anybody who will sit down and listen to your work. Beyond that, think about presentations you have found compelling and try to incorporate some of those elements into your own. Remember you want your work to be comprehensible; you aren’t creating experts in 10 minutes. Above all, try to stay passionate about what you did and why. You put the time in, so show your audience that it’s worth it.

For more insight into research presentations, check out these past PCUR posts written by Emma and Ellie .

— Alec Getraer, Natural Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

• How we work

How to Present Research Proposal Convincingly and Effectively

Correct research proposal presentation is essential in getting your research approved.

Why Is a Proposal for Presentation Important?

A presentation is an essential component that will help you showcase your research from the best angle. It is a roadmap that shows your central research question, how you will find the solution, and what awarenesses and issues stand in your way. A way to present research proposal writing in the form of a paper is essential, but it sets limits on your abilities to demonstrate the content to the audience.

Having a set of slides is good because it is more understandable than writing. Showcasing your future project using graphics and tables is even better because the information becomes more convincing and coherent. Sometimes, the presentation allows individuals to say more than they could do when writing a research plan. Let’s move on and discover how to make research proposal presentation.

4 Steps to Create a Great Thesis Proposal Presentation

When you present your project, you literally sell it to the officials, proving its value and importance within the whole field. That’s why it’s essential to consider valuable points when working on the project. So, below are points to follow when preparing research proposal presentation.

• Show the topic knowledge. Your task is to present fresh ideas and show how well you know the subject. By doing so, you demonstrate how well you studied the topic and understand what should be added to the existing gaps.
• Structure your content. It works the same as with writing and should flow logically. You should smoothly move from one part to another, showcasing all aspects of your research. Also, ensure your presentation proposal does not contain information that does not belong to the topic.
• Use bulleted lists. It makes the writing readable and makes it easy for the audience to absorb the information. Moreover, writing huge sentences on slides has negative impact, so consider using bulleted lists as an alternative.
• Add visuals. Writing too much text is not good, as it is hard to perceive many words on slides visually. Add graphs, images, and infographics to make the information easier to understand. Nevertheless, keep enough ample space not to overload the slides.

Research proposal PowerPoint format allows you to be more creative using tools to compose and deliver the information. Start working beforehand to select the proper background, fonts, and visuals to ensure your slides look great. Still, if you find it difficult to complete the task, asking someone for assistance is a good decision. Consider getting professional help writing research proposal from our experienced pros.

What Should Research Proposal Presentation Consist Of?

When presenting the concept of your study, you should understand what it consists of and what is the purpose of each part. You will understand how to write a presentation proposal. Stick to this plan. Use it like a template, and make sure you include all the needed information. Another great idea is to use dissertation proposal guidelines provided by your institution. Besides, you can look for samples and check how others handle such a task.

Tips to Effectively Present Research Proposal

The concept you create should be impressive and informative. Everything should be focused on your study, showcasing the topic, highlighting its importance, and saying what you expect to achieve. That’s why you should make your thesis proposal presentation a visual aid that helps the audience to understand you. Below are some tips to help you.

• Limit the amount of text on each slide. Focus on writing key phrases only.
• Create contrast by using different colors for text and background to enhance readability. The best combo is a “light text-black background.”
• Use simple design solutions and avoid flashy transitions because they may distract the audience.
• Don’t create too many slides. Decide how many slides you need in each part of your PhD proposal presentation, and don’t go beyond this number.
• Do not read from slides. The visual content is for the audience, so you should give them additional information.
• Avoid templates. There is no need to fit your original proposal for presentation into already-made structures.

To ensure the final version looks good, show it to someone who hasn’t seen it before. With feedback from an independent viewer, you will understand whether everything looks good or not.

How to Present a Research Proposal and Defense It

Simply switching the slides and repeating all the information is not enough. The purpose of the proposal defense is to convince the audience that your research is significant, fundamental, and worth investing in. Those who will listen to you won’t be very interested in research projects. So, how to present a research proposal in a way that makes them listen?

You have to be confident and stick to your agenda. Make notes about what you will say at each stage of the defense. Left the most significant information on the slides, supplementing it with additional abstracts during the demonstration. Keep the pace and show one slide per minute. Rushing is not what’s needed since you aim to show the research project’s significance.

The ability to answer audience questions is another essential of how to make a proposal presentation. Be ready for this because the committee may want to test how well you know your research topic. An unclear answer or a typical “I don’t know” can negatively impact their decision. Practice before the official demonstration and ensure you are confident enough to defend a presentation without notes.

Get Assisted in Creating a Proposal Presentation

Creating a proposal presentation is a responsible task because you are showcasing your future research, explaining why it’s important and how it will close the existing gaps in the field. It requires a deep analysis, which takes lots of time and effort and may be challenging for some individuals.

However, it’s not a problem for our specialists. As well as providing professional thesis writing services , we assist customers with presentation creation. Our experts carefully investigate the topic, do in-depth research, and find relevant data. Moreover, they can help you select research topics, offering unique niches that match your interests.

Contact us anytime you want to achieve outstanding quality and get the writing task done on time.

Upload Files

Thank you for your request!

We will get in touch with you shortly!

Please, try one more time.

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

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

How to create a dissertation proposal defense powerpoint (+example), published by steve tippins on june 21, 2022 june 21, 2022.

Last Updated on: 22nd May 2024, 04:14 am

As part of the dissertation process, you will need to create a dissertation proposal defense PowerPoint to present a summary of the plan for your study. You will need to show how important your study is and how it is useful. 

When creating the PowerPoint, keep in mind that you need to make sure all of your audience can understand all aspects of your study.  The exact content for the defense PowerPoint varies by college, discipline and department, so it is important that you discuss with your committee chair about the requirements. However, we will give some general guidelines that apply to most institutions.

The defense typically takes 20‐30 minutes. You should keep the timeframe in mind as you consider the information you will have in your presentation. 

Except for aspects of your presentation, such as the research question(s) or hypothesis(es), do not just read the slides. Instead, explain or expand on what is on the slides. To ensure you keep within the timeframe, practice narrating your PowerPoint presentation. 

Although the APA manual does not provide guidelines for creating a PowerPoint presentation, you will need to follow some of the APA style guidelines within your PowerPoint. 

For example, provide in-text citations for quotes, paraphrases, images, graphs, and other information that should be cited. Also, you will need to provide a list of pertinent references. 

The following are other format requirements for the slides :

• Create 17-20 slides.
• Do not provide a lot of information. Be concise and write a few sentences (approximately 1-7 on each slide). 
• Because your slides will contain only a small amount of information, any extra information that you want to touch on should be put in the notes section of the PowerPoint. 
• Write the information in your slides for visual appeal and optimum communication, using a legible font size. 
• You can use graphics and images to enhance and reinforce the information. However, ensure that they do not distract from your information.
• You can use bullet points but keep them to a minimum of 3-4 for each listing.

Example Dissertation Proposal Defense PowerPoint Template

The dissertation proposal will consist of three chapters, which you will be providing information on in the presentation. Although the contents and order of the contents may vary, there are some basic parts of the proposal that are usually required.  

The following is a breakdown of the usual contents that are included in the presentation. Each of these headings below represents the titles of each slide. The information below the headings is the type of content you will need to provide. 

Title (1 slide) : 

• Dissertation’s Title 
• Department of Program of Study/Name of University
• Chair and Committee Members

Statement of the Problem (1 slide):

• Provide the problem that your dissertation will address. 

Purpose of the Study (1 slide):

• Provide what the study will do relative to the issue(s) defined in the statement of the problem.

Significance of the Study (1 slide):

• Provide the main argument of why the solution to the problem that you propose is important. 

Research Question(s)/Hypothesis(es ) (1 slide):

• Provide the research question(s) or hypothesis(es) relevant to your field of study, written exactly as it is in your dissertation proposal.

The Literature Review (2 slides):  

• These slides should consist of a coherent, organized overview of the main literature that frames your study’s problem, and the gap in literature that your study will address. Make sure that you include the sources. 

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework (1 slide):

• This slide should consist of the theoretical/conceptual framework that will help you make sense of the phenomenon that you will investigate. 

Research Design (1 slide):

• Provide the framework for the methods of data collection and data analysis. Indicate whether the study will be quantitative or qualitative.

Sample and Population (1 slide):

• Provide the population that refers to the entire group that you will draw conclusions about, and the sample that refers to the specific group that you will collect data from.

Data Collection (1 slide):

• Provide the methods by which you will obtain the data. If the research design is quantitative, provide methods such as correlation and regression, mean, mode and median or others. If the design is qualitative, provide methods such as, interviews, questionnaires with open-ended questions, focus groups, observation, game or role-playing, case studies, or others.

Data Analysis (1-2 slides):

• This slide should contain the process you will use to understand, gather, compile, and process the data you will obtain. 

Limitations (1 slide):

• In this slide, explain the nature of the limitations and how they will be overcome during your research. 

Delimitations (1slide):

• Provide the characteristics that describe the boundaries of your study and limit the scope, such as sample size, geographical location, population traits, or others.

References (1-2 slides):

• Only provide those sources that you referred to in the presentation. Do not provide all the sources that you have in your dissertation proposal.

Thank You/Questions (1 slide):

• Use this final slide to thank your committee and to request questions from them.

Note : For information about citing your references, refer to Chapters 9 and 10 of the APA Manual 7 th edition.

For instructions on how to create a PowerPoint, see How to Create a Powerpoint Presentation .

View this video for “ Tips and Tricks for your Proposal Defense Day Presentation ” 

You can find several templates of students’ Dissertation Proposal Defense presentations online by searching for “Dissertation Proposal Defense PowerPoint.”  You can also find one at this webpage .

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Dissertation memes.

Sometimes you can’t dissertate anymore and you just need to meme. Don’t worry, I’ve got you. Here are some of my favorite dissertation memes that I’ve seen lately. My Favorite Dissertation Memes For when you Read more…

Surviving Post Dissertation Stress Disorder

The process of earning a doctorate can be long and stressful – and for some people, it can even be traumatic. This may be hard for those who haven’t been through a doctoral program to Read more…

PhD by Publication

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

Preparing for your 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.

Even if your defence feels far away, there are steps you can take early on in order to ensure that the end of your PhD and defence process runs smoothly.

Jump to: What is a PhD defence? | Who's at the defence? | What happens at the defence? | What are the possible outcomes of the defence?  

What is a PhD defence?

The thesis defence is a unique opportunity to share with other experts what you did as part of your PhD research, what you found or discovered, and why it’s important. Although there are a lot of regulations guiding the defence process, remember that this process is really about you and your work.  

Goals of the PhD defence:

• Allow you to show your mastery of the subject matter
• Prove you are the author of the world
• Demonstrate your ability to engage in scholarly discourse in your research area

Who's at the PhD defence?

The primary attendees of your PhD defence are the Chair of the defense and your examining committee. The Chair is an impartial faculty member from outside your department who is well-versed in the rules and proceedings of thesis examinations. The Chair does not question you and does not assess your work.

Examining committee:

• Supervisor(s) - Your thesis supervisor(s) that have supervised your research.
• Internal member - A member of your department; typically part of your advisory committee.
• Internal/external member - An "internal" member of the university, but "external" to your home department. This person has suitable knowledge of the subject matter, even though they are from another discipline.
• Additional member - Typically a member from your advisory committee.
• External examiner - A person with a doctoral degree and expertise in the subject matter who evaluates the thesis from a fair an impartial perspective.

At University of Waterloo, it is also standard to have defences open to the public, so you can invite your friends, family and colleagues to be there! Check with your department to figure out what options are available to you.  

In some cases, such as when there are intellectual property concerns, a closed thesis examination can be requested. This means that all those in attendance at the thesis examination, including the examining committee members, must sign a non-disclosure agreement.  Closed examinations must be requested as early as possible.

What happens at the defence?

The first component of the defence is the welcome. The Chair will open up the defence, go over the order of proceedings, introduce the examining committee, and welcome the attendees.

After the welcome, the examination will formally begin with your oral presentation. The presentation is no more than 30 minutes, but the exact length and format can vary by department or discipline. It's best to check with your supervisor to confirm departmental expectations, but overall, the presentation should focus on your main contributions and conclusions. 

The final component of the defence is the questioning period. This is not meant to be an interrogation, rather, a discussion amongst colleagues about the subject of your thesis.

• The examination Chair monitors the question period, which goes in "rounds".
• During the first round of questioning, each committee member will have 15 minutes to ask their questions, provide their comments, and discuss these with you.
• After each committee member has had their turn to ask questions, there may be additional rounds for more questions. The Chair and committee decide when the questions will end.
• Typically, the Chair will reserve some time at the end to accept questions from non-committee members.

While there is no set time for defences at the University of Waterloo, they typically range from 2-3 hours. 

What are the possible outcomes?

Once your formal defence has concluded, the examination Chair will arrange for a private deliberation between the committee members. The examination committee's decision is ultimately based on your written thesis, as well as your ability to defend it, as the decision is determined by a majority vote.

In the event of a tie decision, or if the external examiner's vote is not in the majority, the decision will be deferred to the Associate Vice President (AVP), Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs. The AVP will consult the Faculty Associate Deans and come to a final decision. 

Once the deliberation has concluded, the Chair will inform you of your examining committee's decision.

There are three possible outcomes to a PhD defence:

• Accepted: The thesis is completed to the satisfaction of the examining committee. There may still revisions required, but they are likely minor and typographical or editorial in nature. In this case, you would have one month to complete all revisions and submit your approve thesis to UWspace.
• Accepted conditionally: The oral defence and the thesis are acceptable, but content changes are required that are time intensive. In this case, you would have four months to complete revisions to the approval of your committee and submit the final version to UWspace. A re-examination is not required. 
• Re-examination: The oral defence is not to the satisfaction of the committee and/or substantial changes to the thesis are required. In this case, the candidate must be re-examined within 1 year. 

Re-examination is very rare, and the vast majority of candidates have their thesis accepted at their first examination.

Related links

• Thesis and defence
• Timeline to defence
• Successful defence tips
• Remote defence tips

PhD Thesis Proposal Defense: Common Questions and Feedback

This past two weeks I attended a number of proposal defense of PhD students at my University. In this post, I discuss the general format of a proposal defense as well as discuss the most common questions asked and feedback given to the students by the external examiners.

Structure of a PhD proposal defense

Outcomes of a phd proposal defense, common questions and feedback for chapter 1 of the proposal, common questions and feedback for chapter 2 of the proposal, common questions and feedback for chapter 3 of the proposal, general feedback, final thoughts, related posts.

A proposal defense has: the student defending his proposal, two external examiners, the student’s supervisors, the audience, and the chair of the defense. The defense is structured as follows:

• The chair opens the session by welcoming and acknowledging the student, his supervisors and the external examiners.
• The chair also outlines how the defense will be undertaken including any rules that should be adhered to.
• The chair then welcomes the PhD student to introduce himself and make a presentation (usually 15 minutes).
• After the presentation by the student, the chair opens the floor to the external examiners to give their comments, ask questions and give feedback to the student on how to improve the proposal.
• The student is then required to respond to the questions asked and comments given.
• The chair then makes his remarks.
• Afterwards, the PhD student, his supervisors and the audience are requested to leave the room to allow the chair and the examiners to make their determination. The student and his supervisors are then called back in and the determination is spelt out to them.

There are about 4 possible outcomes after the student presents and defends his proposal:

• The proposal passes with minor or no corrections.
• The proposal passes with major corrections.
• The student retakes the proposal by re-writing it (may include change of topic) and defending it again.
• The proposal is rejected.

Rarely will a student be asked to re-take or will a proposal be rejected especially if it has been adequately supervised. This is because before the proposal is submitted for oral defense, it must be reviewed and signed by the supervisors.

Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 1:

• What is your working definition of [concepts]?
• Which sector do you want to focus on?
• From a [country/region] perspective, please explain what is the problem?
• How do you intend to solve the problem you have identified?
• What will your proposed solution comprise of?
• Who are the recipients of your proposed solution?
• What is the primary outcome of the research?
• Your objectives use [concept] while your problem statement talks of [a different concept]. What’s the difference between the two [concepts]?
• In the research objectives, there is an interchange and insertion of different words. Be careful about the concepts you use. There needs to be consistency in the concepts used throughout the proposal.
• What is the knowledge gap? That is, what is known and what is unknown that your study will attempt to address?
• How do you relate [different variables included in the topic]? Is one a precedent of the other?
• Are you investigating or examining? The topic says investigating while the objectives talk of examining.
• The presentation does not discuss [sector of focus], the opportunities that exist, and the challenges it faces. This would give the student a good basis for undertaking the research.
• There is no continuity in the objectives.
• There is no discussion of the study’s contribution to knowledge and practice, which is very important for PhD-level study.
• The background has many concepts that throw off readers on what the focus of the study is.
• The problem statement is not focused.
• What is the placement of the study regionally?
• The objectives are too long and broad; they should be specific.
• What is the underlying hypothesis of your study?
• One of the research questions is biased. The researcher should take a neutral stand.

Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 2:

• Which theories have inspired your work and who are the proponents of those theories?
• For each theory discussed in your proposal, briefly state what it says and how it informs your study.
• How are the theories related to your study?
• Why did you select those theories and not [other theories]?
• There are no empirical studies reviewed in your proposal.
• Your work must converge with other peoples’ work to be able to show the gap that your study is trying to fill.
• How did the choice of theories help you come up with your study’s concepts and variables?
• How will you measure the variables [in the topic]?
• You have just touched the surface of the empirical review, which should be a substantial section of your literature review.
• It is not clear what the research gap is from the literature review.
• After the empirical review, that’s when you now discuss the conceptual framework.
• The conceptual framework should clearly show the dependent and independent variables and their relationships.

Below is a list of the common questions and feedback for chapter 3:

• Kindly explain what your research philosophy is.
• What will your [quantitative] model comprise of?
• How are you going to verify and validate your [quantitative] model?
• Why is the sampling formula appropriate to your sector and study? Justify the sampling formula used in the proposal.
• Justify the choice of the sampling technique [e.g. purposive sampling].
• Justify your choice of data collection and data analysis methods.
• Are you going to use an inductive approach or a deductive approach to your study?
• There needs to be consistency between your objectives and research philosophy.
• If you have a number of population categories, you need to clearly articulate the sampling techniques for each category.
• The data analysis methods should be clearly articulated.
• The ethical considerations of your study should be adequately discussed.
• The data collection instruments should be part of the proposal defense.
• Your choice of research design and methods should be justified.
• What is your unit of analysis?
• Who are your study’s population?
• Will you have different questionnaires for different respondents?
• The data collection tools should have adequate background information questions to enable comparisons across different socio-economic and demographic groups.
• Why are you lagging a variable? Justify the need to lag the variable.
• Justify the choice of the model [e.g. Structural Equation Model].
• Which specific multivariate analysis will you use?
• Which tests are you going to conduct for the model and why? [e.g. normality, multicollinearity tests etc]
• The variables of your study should be defined.

In addition to the chapter-specific questions and feedback given, the students also received feedback on:

• The formatting of their proposals, including the font styles and size allowed, the numbering of the documents,
• The inclusion of front pages such as cover page, declaration, abstract, table of contents,
• The inclusion of back pages such as reference list and appendices which should include letter of introduction, consent letter for study respondents, data collection instruments, and work plan (Gantt chart) for the study.
• The style of referencing recommended by the School e.g. APA, which should be consistent throughout the proposal. The proposal defense should also include some of the citations so as to give it an authoritative feel.

From my observations during the four proposal defenses I attended, a proposal defense is an opportunity for the PhD student to defend his work and to convince the interviewing panel that the student knows what he is doing and what is required of him moving forward. Most of the panellists will do their best to make the student feel comfortable rather than intimidate him so PhD students should not panic when preparing to defend their proposals.

Of importance is adequate preparation before the defense and making sure that the proposal and presentation follow the guidelines provided by the School. Lastly, PhD students should keep in mind that the aim of the proposal defense is to help improve upon the student’s proposal and ensure that the research will meet the scientific rigour and standards of a PhD-level work.

How To Write Chapter 1 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Practical Guide)

How To Write Chapter 2 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Beginner’s Guide)

How To Write Chapter 3 Of A PhD Thesis Proposal (A Detailed Guide)

How To Format A PhD Thesis In Microsoft Word (An Illustrative Guide)

Comprehensive Guidelines for Writing a PhD Thesis Proposal (+ free checklist for PhD Students)

Grace Njeri-Otieno

Grace Njeri-Otieno is a Kenyan, a wife, a mom, and currently a PhD student, among many other balls she juggles. She holds a Bachelors' and Masters' degrees in Economics and has more than 7 years' experience with an INGO. She was inspired to start this site so as to share the lessons learned throughout her PhD journey with other PhD students. Her vision for this site is "to become a go-to resource center for PhD students in all their spheres of learning."

Recent Content

SPSS Tutorial #12: Partial Correlation Analysis in SPSS

Partial correlation is almost similar to Pearson product-moment correlation only that it accounts for the influence of another variable, which is thought to be correlated with the two variables of...

SPSS Tutorial #11: Correlation Analysis in SPSS

In this post, I discuss what correlation is, the two most common types of correlation statistics used (Pearson and Spearman), and how to conduct correlation analysis in SPSS. What is correlation...

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Presentation checklist

• Tips for designing the slides
• Presentation checklist
• Example slides
• Additional Resources

Technical checklist

1. did you add page numbers, 2. did you test animation and videos, 3. did you check if the font sizes are too small, especially in tables and figures, content checklist, 1. did you emphasize the importance of the work, 2. was your contribution clearly identified , 3. did you include your funding sources in your acknowledgment .

• << Previous: Tips for designing the slides
• Next: Example slides >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:18 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=883178

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to greet the audience at the beginning of a PhD defense talk/presentation?

I'll be giving a 30-min public talk as a part of my PhD defense next month. It would be attended by the examination committee (consisting of my advisor and two examiners). I reckon that some professors/lecturers from the university might also join it apart from my colleagues and friends.

What would be a suitable - neither too short or seemingly-snappy nor too long and boring - way to address the audience at the very beginning of my talk? For instance, starting with

Hello everyone

sounds a bit too informal to me. Personally, I am inclined to starting with

Respected members of the examination committee...

but I am not sure if that, because of the " Respected ", may be considered too traditional (unfortunately, I don't recall how my colleagues who graduated in the last years did it - you never focus on such aspects until it is your turn :-$).

Should I refer to the examination committee using names, as in:

Respected members of the examination committee, Prof. X, Prof. Y, and Prof. Z

or better not?

For peers and friends, addressing could simply continue as

... and dear colleagues and friends.

Should I also try to sandwich another category specifically for the other professors and lecturers? If so, what could be a suitable way to address them?

• presentation

• 40 Most PhD talks around here start with something like "Good morning. My name is jayann, and I am today defending my dissertation on XYZ". No need to overthink this. –  xLeitix Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 10:37
• 21 It depends on your institution. In Holland, you actually have to say (in Dutch) something to the effect of "Very esteemed and highly learned Professor Doctor X, I would like to give you my most sincere thanks for the very insightful comments that blah blah blah" (seriously). I've been to defences in California where the candidate just went "hi". Short answer: ask you advisor, he/she knows what the norm of your institution is. –  Koldito Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 10:53
• 15 In my graduate (US mathematics) department, the custom was for the thesis advisor to introduce the speaker as we usually do for invited speakers at seminars/colloquia (something like 'I am pleased/delighted to introduce Harry Potter who will be defending his thesis "Horcruxes and how to find them"'), following which the speaker usually thanks the advisor for the introduction, possibly thanks the audience for being there, and then gets on with it. –  Aru Ray Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 15:26
• 1 I would go with "Hello, and welcome to the presentation of my Ph.D. thesis". –  padawan Commented Oct 1, 2015 at 0:53
• 2 In the US to me, "Hello everyone" sounds formal and appropriate, whereas "Respected members of the examination committee" sounds downright ridiculous. Just wish everyone a "good morning", or a "hello", or a "let's get started", and then get on with your talk. –  Caleb Stanford Commented May 19, 2017 at 23:04

3 Answers 3

I would like to second both xLeitix and Koldito's comments and convert them into an answer:

In most cases, there is no requirement, and you can just say, "Good [morning/afternoon], my name is [name], and welcome to my thesis defense."

A very few institutions have a much more formal set of requirements. For example, when I was an examiner for a defense at TU Delft, I had to learn a few words of Dutch in order to ask my questions with the required formality. Also, I had to come a day early to get fitted for a special archaic form of suit. Don't worry about this, though: if this is the case for your institution, then somebody will make sure that you are instructed in what to do.

• 3 Indeed, these formalities are (nearly) the same at all Dutch universities and if you're a PhD student, the precise rules will most surely be pointed out to you well before the day of the defense. Still, when the time is there, candidates make mistakes, but nobody cares that much: it's mostly fun to spot them when you're in the audience ;-) –  Jaap Eldering Commented Oct 1, 2015 at 0:07

The answer lie in the comments to your question.

Check your local customs. Have you not attended a single PhD talk during your time as a PhD student? What have students done so far? And ... talk to your advisor.

Do not overdo it. If you try to work in lots of complex thanks and courteous comments, you are very likely to stumble and forget and the impression becomes unprofessional or insecure at best. Thanks area also easily managed by adding a slide with thanks to advisers, funding and whatever you feel is necessary. You can use that as the last slide of your presentation since the audience will then know the presentation is over.

Ideally, you would already have attended similar defenses of your advisor's earlier Ph.D. students before and picked up the prevailing social norms there - also concerning other "soft factors", like whether to feed everyone afterwards, with what etc.

I gather this didn't happen, so I'll second Koldito's comment-answer : just ask your advisor. And/or talk to other people in your institution, even if they work in other areas. Such things will likely be more specific to your regional culture than to your specific subfield.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged etiquette presentation defense ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• I'm trying to remember a novel about an asteroid threatening to destroy the earth. I remember seeing the phrase "SHIVA IS COMING" on the cover
• Do metal objects attract lightning?
• What prevents a browser from saving and tracking passwords entered to a site?
• Using conditionals within \tl_put_right from latex3 explsyntax
• Two way ANOVA or two way repeat measurement ANOVA
• Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
• What to call a test that consists of running a program with only logging?
• Distinctive form of "לאהוב ל-" instead of "לאהוב את"
• DATEDIFF Rounding
• Chromatic homotopy + algebraic geometry =?
• Has the US said why electing judges is bad in Mexico but good in the US?
• Integral concerning the floor function
• How much payload could the Falcon 9 send to geostationary orbit?
• How to reply to reviewers who ask for more work by responding that the paper is complete as it stands?
• What is an intuitive way to rename a column in a Dataset?
• How can I delete a column from several CSV files?
• Encode a VarInt
• A way to move an object with the 3D cursor location as the moving point?
• Do the amplitude and frequency of gravitational waves emitted by binary stars change as the stars get closer together?
• "TSA regulations state that travellers are allowed one personal item and one carry on"?
• Is there a way to resist spells or abilities with an AOE coming from my teammates, or exclude certain beings from the effect?
• Why does a rolling ball slow down?
• Is it possible to have a planet that's gaslike in some areas and rocky in others?
• Manifest Mind vs Shatter

PhD Program in Epidemiology

Guidelines for the qualifying examination (dissertation proposal).

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY PH.D. DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

I. Establishing the Dissertation Committee

1) Once a student has passed the comprehensive examination, they will formally select a dissertation advisory committee of not fewer than four members.

• The student may begin to identify likely candidates for the committee in advance of passing the comprehensive exam.
• The dissertation committee is intended to bring specialized expertise and resources to a student’s research and career development process. The dissertation chair is primarily responsible for overall guidance of the student’s research and training.
• The dissertation committee is responsible for administering the qualifying examination (proposal defense) and the final dissertation examination.
• The student should review the list of Graduate Faculty and talk with the Program Manager about the specific individuals under consideration, to make sure they are qualified by the Graduate School to serve on a PhD committee.

2) The committee will be chosen in consultation with the student’s research mentor.

3) The committee must include two members of the Epidemiology faculty other than the mentor and at least one faculty member from Biostatistics, unless a different quantitative person is more appropriate.

4) The committee must be appointed by the Graduate School no less than two weeks before the time of the qualifying examination.

II. Preparing the Dissertation Proposal

1) The dissertation proposal is a comprehensive proposal detailing the motivation, approach, and feasibility of the student’s proposed doctoral dissertation research.

2) The dissertation will comprise, at the minimum:

1. Critical review of the literature, including quantifying results from previous studies

2. Motivation for the study, and how it fulfills certain gaps in the field

3. Statement of specific aims, and hypotheses for each aim

4. Proposed approach and analytic plan, including:

a) Table 1 equivalent descriptors with overview of population (for each aim if population differs)

b) Detailed operational definitions of key exposure and outcome variables in text and potentially figures/tables, including the construction of variables and any decisions that need to be made (spline, percentiles, categorical from continuous)

c) Detailed operational definitions of other variables proposed and their construction (can be in table format)

d) Rationale for candidate confounders for each aim

e) Rationale for consideration of effect modification

f) Detailed analysis plan that includes statistical methods to be used for each aim, and an explanation as to the assumptions and/or caveats associated with such methods

g) Clear defense of superiority of the modeling approach over common alternatives

h) Power calculations for each aim

5. Description of papers to be written from the research

6. Potential limitations of the study

7. Appendices with key source documents.

3) There is no page limit; the length of the proposal will vary.

4) It is highly recommended that students attend each other’s qualifying exams (proposal defenses), in preparation for their own.

III. Working with Your Committee

1) The first, full draft of the dissertation proposal should be presented to the dissertation committee at least 2 months prior to the planned date of the qualifying exam.

• The final, completed draft of the proposal should be given to the committee 3 weeks before the date of the exam.

2) The student is in charge of this process:

• You are responsible for organizing committee meetings and making sure that things progress. At this point in your career, you should be in charge of moving things along, not your committee.
• Provide your materials/rewrites/proposal to your committee members with plenty of time to review (three to four weeks ahead for formal meetings). Do not expect to give material to your committee the night before and get something in the next day or two. Demonstrate that you value the committee members’ input and time by being courteous.
• Make sure you give your committee members quality work, work that you and potentially others have edited, checking for grammar and spelling errors. There is nothing worse than when a student wants quality feedback, but hasn’t bothered to provide quality material. Furthermore, if a committee member suggests changes, don’t give it back to them for review without those changes. If you disagree – discuss it, but just don’t ignore it.
• Provide a schedule for your committee so they know what to anticipate and potentially make time for. An example:

– Aug 1- will provide 1st draft to committee members

– Aug 28- request that committee feedback be given by this date

– Sept 21- makes changes return to committee (repeat cycle as needed until committee is satisfied with your proposal)

– Oct 10- final proposal will be given to committee members

– Oct 31 – Committee meeting/proposal defense

• Prior to scheduling the qualifying exam, you should have agreement from all committee members that your proposal is ready, by their standards and taking into account their concerns, to be defended.
• Practice the oral presentation!

IV. Qualifying Exam (aka oral proposal defense)

1) The qualifying examination is an oral defense of the dissertation proposal.

2) The Graduate School must be notified of the time and place of the qualifying examination at least 2 weeks in advance.

3) To qualify for candidacy, a student must complete all of the required first and second year courses, must be in good academic standing (GPA ≥3.0), must pass the comprehensive examination and must pass an oral qualifying examination.

4) The examining committee is the student’s dissertation committee.

5) The examining committee assesses the written proposal and oral defense by rating the success of the student in the following components:

1. Familiarity with research literature

2. Ability to organize scientific data

3. Critical thinking skills

4. Mastery of principles and methodology proposed

5. Oral presentation of proposal

6. Ability to interpret and answer questions appropriately

6) The three possible outcomes of the examination are: Pass; Conditional Pass; or Fail.

1. A Fail requires a complete Qualifying Exam take-over (if a second Fail occurs, the student is dismissed from the program).

2. A Conditional Pass requires a set of conditions to be set out by the committee, with a due date by which such conditions must be fulfilled. Upon satisfactory completion by the due date, the Conditional Pass will then become a Pass; otherwise it will become a Fail.

Feel free to contact  [email protected]  with any questions.

• About the School
• Quick Facts
• Administration
• Basic Sciences
• A-Z Directory
• Contact Information
• Campus Maps & Parking

• Current Students
• Basic Sciences Faculty Affairs
• Clinical Faculty Affairs
• Eskind Biomedical Library
• People Finder

• Faculty/Staff
• MyMichiganTech
• Safety Data Sheets
• Website Settings
• Engineering
• Materials Science and Engineering

Preparation of the PhD Qualifying Exam Proposal

The Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) PhD Qualifying Exam is intended to allow the candidate to demonstrate depth of understanding in his/her chosen area of research, and to demonstrate the ability to use the scientific method to identify and solve research problems. The main elements of the examination process will be a Research Proposal and an Oral Defense of that proposal.

The research proposal is intended to justify a body of research based in part on preliminary research during the first year in the PhD program. It should describe a specific novel scientific or technological objective and a program of research designed to achieve that objective. Examples of research objectives that are typically advanced in proposals include:

• an improved understanding of physical phenomena
• development of a new or improved measurement or analysis technique
• investigation of an unknown structure-processing-property relationship
• development of new technologies or devices

The proposal should include one or more clearly stated hypotheses related to the chosen research objective.

The proposed research plan should clearly indicate how the proposed research will prove or disprove the stated hypothesis, thereby achieving the research objectives. Design of the research program should address the following questions:

• How will high quality data relevant to the achievement of the research objective will be developed?
• What are the important independent and dependent variables to be examined.
• What experimental and/or computational techniques will be used?
• Why are these techniques the most appropriate ones to use?
• What are the errors and/or uncertainties associated with these techniques.
• How will the results of the research be evaluated?
• How will the uncertainties discussed above be evaluated.
• How will the data analysis be used to support the research objective stated in the proposal?

The research proposal should be directly related to the ongoing graduate research program of the candidate, and the candidate should be familiar with the associated scientific and/or engineering concepts at a first year graduate student level. The proposed research may, or may not, coincide with research the candidate will actually perform in the PhD research program, and the proposal is not intended to constrain the candidate or advisor in the conduct of the doctoral research project.

Below are required elements. Other elements may be included at the candidate's discretion, but the total length of the proposal should not exceed the 15 pages discussed below under format.

• Title page with Abstract: The title page should include the title of the proposed research project, the proposer's name and affiliation (Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Michigan Technological University), the date of submission, the organization to whom the proposal is submitted (MTU-MSE Graduate Program Committee). The abstract should clearly indicate the topic and objective of the proposed research. The abstract should be short enough that it will fit on the title page.
• Research Objectives: A strong proposal is driven by clear research objectives and strong, solid hypotheses related to those objectives. The reviewer should clearly understand the thrust of the research after reading this portion of the proposal.
• Background and Significance: This section should summarize the background essential to understand the research topic, and how the proposed research will achieve the objectives. It should also help the reader to appreciate the significance the proposed research. This section should critically evaluate relevant literature, explain what is not currently known about the topic and present hypotheses concerning what is unknown. Preliminary (unpublished) results may be presented here for the purpose of illustrating either the scientific background or the research objectives.
• Proposed Research: This section should briefly, but clearly, describe the specific experiments or calculations to be performed in order to achieve the previously stated research objectives. It should state how the results each experiment or calculation will be interpreted to prove or disprove the hypotheses posed in the objectives. Preliminary (unpublished) results may be used here to illustrate the relevance of the proposed experimental approach(es) or their interpretation.
• Summary and Significance: This section should briefly summarize the proposed research and the hypothesis that will be addressed. It should also expand on the new understanding that will result from the research, and its significance to the broader field of materials science and engineering.

The proposal length, not including the title page or the list of cited references should not exceed 15 pages.

• Page format: The body of the proposal should have 1-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Type should be 12-point font, single space. The first line of each paragraph should be indented 0.5-inch, and body paragraphs should be single-spaced and left-aligned.
• Headers and Footers: Each page following the title page should have headers and footer. The candidate's last name should be left-aligned in the header and the date of submission should be right-aligned in the header. The footer should show the page number and total number of pages.
• Figures: Each figure must have a numbered caption that describes it and calls out any specific features that are discussed in the body of the proposal. The first line of the caption should be outdented (left hanging) approximately 0.75 inch to allow the figure number to be set to the left of the caption.
• Tables: Tables should be numbered consecutively, with the table number and title centered above the table. Unless they exceed one page in length, page breaks should not occur within a table.
• Equations: Equations should be presented as a separate line following their introduction in the narrative text of the proposal. Consecutive equation numbers should be provided in parentheses at the right margin.
• Cited Literature: Literature cited in the proposal should be indicated by numbers in square brackets. Citation numbers should be introduced sequentially throughout the proposal, and correspond to a list of cited literature at the end of the proposal. The format for literature citations should follow those for author instructions to Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A.

Candidates should feel free to ask others to read and comment on the clarity of their research proposals. They should also feel free to make use of the Michigan Tech Writing Center for help with grammar and style. Candidates should not, however, enlist advisors or colleagues as un-named second authors or editors of their proposals. The proposals are intended to represent the candidate's own intellectual product, and should not represent the writing of others.

The proposal must be submitted to the examining committee at least 2 weeks prior to the scheduled date of the oral defense. The oral defense itself will consist of a short presentation (25 minutes) of the proposed research, followed by oral examination of the student by the committee. The oral examination may address any topic related to the written proposal or the oral presentation.

UVA Doctoral Students Showcase Potential of Advanced Data Science Research

Doctoral students from the University of Virginia’s School of Data Science kicked off the new academic year with a research showcase, highlighting the broad range of areas that advanced studies in data science can help illuminate. 

The event also served as a celebration of the doctoral program and what it means to the mission of the School of Data Science. 

"The Ph.D. program is kind of the perfect mixing of our research endeavors and our educational endeavors," said Thomas Stewart , an associate professor of data science and Ph.D. program director, in opening remarks.

Don Brown , senior associate dean for research and the Quantitative Foundation Distinguished Professor in Data Science, noted that the event was "arguably the best part of the summer," as faculty, staff, and students are given the opportunity to see first-hand the high-level research that Ph.D. students at the School of Data Science had been pursuing in recent months.

Brown also urged audience members as they listened to the oral presentations from second-year students and viewed the research posters from third-year students to ask challenging questions, saying that was "the biggest gift you can give the person" who was presenting.

Oral presentations were delivered by 13 second-year Ph.D. students, whose research covered everything from health care chatbots to deep dives into a wide range of methodological techniques, as well as issues pertaining to large language models. 

Later, 13 third-year students presented research posters that addressed critical issues such as health care, K-12 education, the environment, and many others. 

Following the presentations, an awards ceremony was held, one that both recognized the research that had just been discussed and that celebrated the achievements of the School of Data Science doctoral program — its students, faculty, and staff — over the previous year. Stewart also highlighted a sampling of recent research publications from the School's doctoral students. 

As the day wound down, Jeffrey Blume , Quantitative Foundation Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs in Data Science, urged the newest group of School of Data Science Ph.D. students in attendance to take inspiration from what they had just seen.

"For those students who are new and who are here, you get a sense of what people are doing their first couple of years, so it's something to look forward to. We look forward to seeing your names up here on publications and listening to your work," he said. 

The 2024-25 academic year will mark the third full year of UVA’s data science doctoral program , which launched in fall 2022. And, for the first time, students in all academic programs will be able to take classes and collaborate with faculty and classmates at the new home of the School of Data Science, which held its grand opening in April .  

Awards 

Best Oral Presentations

• Ethan Nelson , who discussed his work that examined whether signal neural networks can evolve to capture how signals travel between neurons over time
• Ahson Saiyed , who presented his enhanced benchmark, called TAXI 2.0, for evaluating the capacity of knowledge editing methods to leverage batched property edits to make consistent categorical knowledge edits in large language models

Best Research Poster

• Karolina Naranjo-Velasco , who presented her work on facilitating data-drive approaches to legal text analysis of documents from the Colombian Constitutional Court
• Jason Wang , who presented his work assessing computer vision-based worker poster analysis methods

Leadership and Service Award

• Beau LeBlond , a third-year Ph.D. student 

Outstanding Teaching Award

• Jonathan Kropko , a Quantitative Foundation Associate Professor of Data Science

Outstanding Mentoring Award

• Stephen Baek , a Quantitative Foundation Associate Professor of Data Science

Outstanding Student Support Award

• Kylen Baskerville , program manager for the School of Data Science

Full list of second-year oral presentations

• Supervising faculty: Stephen Baek
• Supervising faculty: Don Brown
• Supervising faculty: Heman Shakeri
• Supervising faculty: Jeffrey Blume
• Supervising faculty: John Darrell Van Horn
• Supervising faculty: Sheng Li
• Supervising faculty: Teague Henry
• Supervising faculty: Tom Hartvigsen
• Supervising faculty: Sheng Li and Tom Hartvigsen
• Supervising faculty: Alex Gates

Full list of third-year poster presentations

• Zhanwen Chen : Video Understanding through Video-to-Text Representation Learning
• Supervising faculty: Thomas Stewart
• Supervising faculty: Jonathan Kropko
• Supervising faculty: William Basener
• Supervising faculty: Jess Reia and Jeffrey Blume
• Supervising faculty: William Basener  

Effective Communication Strategies for Ph.D. Research Presentations

UVA’s School of Data Science Honors the Class of 2024

School of Data Science Ph.D. Students and Faculty Member Named To Raven Society

Ph.D., Data Science: Jiahao Tian Successfully Defends Dissertation

Get the latest news.

Subscribe to receive updates from the School of Data Science.

• Prospective Student
• School of Data Science Alumnus
• UVA Affiliate
• Industry Member