As a former graduate student, the author himself have defended his thesis before a thesis defense panel and also have observed numerous thesis defenses. As a counseling psychology graduate his observations of the whole process of thesis defense panel have culminated with the impetus to write this article. The objective of this article is the call for restoration of a more objective, broad-minded, student-supportive thesis defense panel that is more professional and less subjective and picky.
Problems in Thesis Appraisals
Graduate and Post-Graduate students who have to defend their thesis or dissertation face many problems with their Thesis or dissertation defense panels. Problems from conflict of interests, favoritism, personality discriminations, panelist ignorance, panelist ego and many other problems are heaped upon the defense students. When a faculty is instructor-centered, the shift of power is in favor with the panelist who is mostly made of instructors. And this power is many times abused by ego-centric and power-manic personalities who lose their sense of what is the actual role of being a defense panelist. Some instructors think that they are in the defense panels as witch hunters. Others think they are Einstein-type personalities who need to show the cleverness. Yet others think they are the kings in their areas specialization and therefore any thesis that does not fit their pre-determined criteria must be shot down. But sadly, there are the fair, objective and balanced instructors and deans who many times are overwhelmed by a dominating colleague(s) who silence them into group thinking.
Group thinking and Biasness in Thesis Appraisals
Group thinking occurs in these panels because panel members want to reach consensus and are focused on cohesiveness as a panel even at the expense of objectivity, critical, and analytical appraisals. In the pursuit for consensus and cohesiveness individual panel members lose their creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. Motives like the avoidance of being seen as foolish, embarrassment, and avoidance of conflict with other panel members and last of all to remain in the safety and comfort-zone of consensus thinking drives these panelists into group thinking mode.
When the above motives are present in individual panel members, it is easy psychologically for one or two members of the defense panel to dominate the panel at anytime in their favor. This is done by academically tearing the thesis being presented to shreds which in the process seeks to intimidate the student and also the other panel members. Since all points are seemingly covered by the dominating instructor(s), the rest of the panel members would quickly fall into obedient, agreeable mode and in short become group thinkers. To look more respectable, the panel members who are dominated will make remarks like:
"Ah yes! so and so appraisal was also what I was thinking, I agree with the critique. Others would go into a freeze mode of agreeable silence.
The results of this kind of defense panel behaviors usually are:
1. Re-defense or resubmission not because it is needed but to please the dominating instructor.
2. The thinking culture that the dominating instructor is always right, nothing but right.
3. When news of this defense thinking culture gets around, potential thesis defense students immediately want to take the dominating instructor (s) as advisor to be safe when their turn comes to defend the thesis.
Article Resource | Thesis Writing
Problems in Thesis Appraisals
Graduate and Post-Graduate students who have to defend their thesis or dissertation face many problems with their Thesis or dissertation defense panels. Problems from conflict of interests, favoritism, personality discriminations, panelist ignorance, panelist ego and many other problems are heaped upon the defense students. When a faculty is instructor-centered, the shift of power is in favor with the panelist who is mostly made of instructors. And this power is many times abused by ego-centric and power-manic personalities who lose their sense of what is the actual role of being a defense panelist. Some instructors think that they are in the defense panels as witch hunters. Others think they are Einstein-type personalities who need to show the cleverness. Yet others think they are the kings in their areas specialization and therefore any thesis that does not fit their pre-determined criteria must be shot down. But sadly, there are the fair, objective and balanced instructors and deans who many times are overwhelmed by a dominating colleague(s) who silence them into group thinking.
Group thinking and Biasness in Thesis Appraisals
Group thinking occurs in these panels because panel members want to reach consensus and are focused on cohesiveness as a panel even at the expense of objectivity, critical, and analytical appraisals. In the pursuit for consensus and cohesiveness individual panel members lose their creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. Motives like the avoidance of being seen as foolish, embarrassment, and avoidance of conflict with other panel members and last of all to remain in the safety and comfort-zone of consensus thinking drives these panelists into group thinking mode.
When the above motives are present in individual panel members, it is easy psychologically for one or two members of the defense panel to dominate the panel at anytime in their favor. This is done by academically tearing the thesis being presented to shreds which in the process seeks to intimidate the student and also the other panel members. Since all points are seemingly covered by the dominating instructor(s), the rest of the panel members would quickly fall into obedient, agreeable mode and in short become group thinkers. To look more respectable, the panel members who are dominated will make remarks like:
"Ah yes! so and so appraisal was also what I was thinking, I agree with the critique. Others would go into a freeze mode of agreeable silence.
The results of this kind of defense panel behaviors usually are:
1. Re-defense or resubmission not because it is needed but to please the dominating instructor.
2. The thinking culture that the dominating instructor is always right, nothing but right.
3. When news of this defense thinking culture gets around, potential thesis defense students immediately want to take the dominating instructor (s) as advisor to be safe when their turn comes to defend the thesis.
Article Resource | Thesis Writing
No comments:
Post a Comment