a substantial, value-added contribution to knowledge. This
advice does not mean that you should adopt a completely
inflexible or mindless insistence that all is well with your analy-
sis. If the examiners have serious doubts after several interac-
tions then a stubborn perseverance on your part can aggravate
things. It could make things worse by appearing perverse to an
unsympathetic examiner, and elicit a similar hard line from
them in return. So beyond keeping the faith you need also to
practice ‘Defence in depth’.
This approach recognizes that most academics want to teach
something and to modify other people’s thinking. They want to
have their input registered and get their viewpoint accepted or
at least recognized. Senior professionals who have agreed to be
a PhD examiner will give up a week to reading and comment-
ing on your text, and perhaps another day to travelling across
country to listen to you in person. They are by no means
immune to these motivations, even if subconsciously. The
examiners are not there for the money or the fun of it, but in
pursuit of a concept of professional duty. So their own position
in the profession is obviously important to them. And that pro-
vides you with an opportunity to deflect potentially destructive
criticism or demands for difficult revisions into new pathways.
Defence in depth has several main elements.
◆ Check before you print your final text that your thesis will
not unnecessarily annoy your examiners. They must have
some relevant expertise, or otherwise why are they
examiners? And it is only natural for them to want to see
their work (or their school of thought’s work) recognized in
new research. Incorporate some of their publications into
the bibliography and try to refer to them subtly and non-
controversially in the opening chapter at least. This does not
have to be an artificial thing, since many general points can
be referenced in multiple different ways. Think also about
their referencing circle, and be careful that you are not
gratuitously attacking a school of thought with which one
of the examiners is closely identified.
◆ Where an examiner is critical of your work in the oral exam,
acknowledge that she has made a good point which will
henceforward be a stimulus to your thinking. But see if you
222 ◆AUTHORING A PHD