Surviving the Viva

Now Ask About My Thesis

As the year comes to a close, I am extremely happy and proud to report that I will cross the threshold of 2015 having attained my PhD! My viva was held at the end of November. I was lucky in that my teaching responsibilities were primarily in October and December, which meant that I had enough time to dedicate to the process of re-reading my thesis, chapter by chapter, making notes, corrections, and identifing possible weaknesses, and then to try to prepare answers to some of the questions I was likely going to be asked in the viva. Including, of course, the dreaded yet essential question: What is your contribution?

Come viva day, I felt like a boxer, prepped and ready for the fight of their career. I had eaten a hearty breakfast, my brain was awake and alert, and the combination of excitement and focus was like none other. However, due to a travel delay for the external examiner, the start time of the viva kept being pushed back – first by an hour, then by another half hour, then by ten minutes! The havoc this wreaked on my nerves was incredible. I decided I could not cram any more information into my head and after a quick trip to the coffee shop, I spent that last ten minutes pre-viva in my office, in half-moon pose, just trying to stay calm and keep the blood flowing.

Finally, they let me into the room (which just happened to be next door to my office). We sat down, the examiners introduced themselves, and they started off with a broad question: What brought you to be interested in this topic? I shared some of my history of working in youth and arts organisations, co-founding and directing Youth Speaks Seattle, and explained that this led me to a Master’s and eventually a PhD in entrepreneurship. But that was the end of the nice, easy storytelling. The next two hours, the examiners went systematically through the chapters of my PhD and asked probing questions that compelled me to defend the choices I had made in the thesis. As in, “In Chapter 2, page 47, from where did you derive this information?” and “The definition of gender doesn’t arrive until Chapter 3. Why was it not present earlier?” My favourite one arrived when we reached the methodology chapter. The external said, “You don’t just wake up one day as an ‘intersectional cyberfeminist critical realist’. How did you arrive at this particular methodology?” I actually laughed in response, and said “Don’t you mean an intersectional cyberfeminist critical realist with a standpoint epistemology?” Sometimes these labels sound so ridiculous you just have to laugh. But, in a serious response, I discussed why I had systematically eliminated both empirical realist and post-structural perspectives and chosen critical realism (because the methodology must be directed by the object of inquiry – this is always the right answer), and then explained how intersectionality and cyberfeminism informed my assumptions about the nature of the social world and about technology, and the Internet in particular. I can only say that I was relieved when she seemed satisfied with my explanation!

This grilling went on for a couple of hours, during which time I had a low-blood sugar moment in which I felt a bit faint and asked for a 2-minute break, which they graciously granted, during which I drank a bit of juice and had a quick bathroom break! We started back up, and I kept talking, as my supervisors had advised (“the more you talk, the fewer questions they get to ask you!”), and they made recommendations along the way – add these citations, switch the order of these two chapters, strengthen your discussion of class, highlight your contributions further. All very constructive stuff. Eventually, they came to their last question, which was “What have you learned during the process of your PhD?” I told the truth, which was that I am a different person now that when I started. The PhD has transformed my processes of thinking, analysis, argumentation, and writing, and most of all, expanded my intellectual horizons. I left them to discuss their conclusions, ran upstairs to the library to pick up a book to distract myself from any more waiting, and about five minutes later I came back to the viva room. The external shook my hand, saying as she did so, “Let me be the first to congratulate you, Dr. Dy.” They recommended 3 months minor corrections, which I hope to finish by the end of January, with graduation to come in July.

And that, my friends, is the story of how I survived my viva.

Call for Papers: Feminist Early Career Academics

Please see below a call for papers for an edited book entitled ‘Feminist Beginnings: Being an Early Career Feminist Academic in a Changing Academy’, to be edited by Dr Rachel Thwaites and Dr Amy Godoy-Pressland. Please circulate around your networks.

In a fast-changing higher education academy, where marketisation is increasingly becoming the dominant model, the pressures on academics seem great, while the need to ‘play the game’ to succeed has never been more important. Within this context, entering the academy as an early career academic presents many challenges, as well as possibilities. Moving from the relative autonomy, and often bubble of safety, of the PhD into teaching or research contracts where there may be less flexibility and freedom within the institutional hierarchy, can be a real step change. Early career academics also frequently face the prospect of working on fixed term contracts, with little security and no certain prospect of advancement, while constantly looking for the next contract.

Being a feminist early career academic adds a further layer; how does one maintain one’s feminist identity and politics within what has traditionally been a very male-dominated institution where few women reach the most senior positions? Moreover the ethos of the marketising university where students are sometimes viewed as ‘customers’, may sit uneasily with a politics of equality for all. Feminist values and practice can provide a means of working through the challenges, but may also bring complications. As feminist researchers and teachers ourselves, we feel the impact of trying to live out a feminist politics provides another set of priorities which affect the way one thinks about the everyday and overarching experience of an academic career. This political outlook can lead to transformative events, but can also raise difficulties when in a non-feminist department or a research climate which does not take gender seriously.

This edited volume will thus explore the early years of an academic career from a feminist perspective and should appeal to students and academics at all stages of their careers. We therefore welcome contributions which provide findings from research studies, theory pieces, and experiential/personal pieces. The format of these is open to some interpretation and we will accept pieces of up to 3000 words for a personal piece and up to 8000 words for a theory/research paper on themes including, but not limited to:

* Being a feminist in higher education

* Moving from a women’s/gender studies centre into the wider academic community

* Maintaining your feminist identity

* Feminism in the curriculum and in the classroom

* Negotiating the academic hierarchy as an early career feminist

* Building a feminist support network

* The academic ‘lifestyle’: how to be an ‘academic’

We define ‘early career’ as those within five years of having been awarded their PhD and ‘higher education’ as any university setting. We are actively seeking contributions which will provide a wide international perspective, however they must be written in English.

To submit an abstract (300-400 words), or for any queries, please contact either Dr Rachel Thwaites, or Dr Amy Godoy-Pressland

Deadline for Abstracts: 5th December 2014 (decision to be made by 6th February 2015)

Provisional date for full article: 7th September 2015