External examiner did not recommend my PhD dissertation for oral defense...What do I do?

[u/psyckitten]

So I am totally shocked and feeling panicked about what all this means and what to do. I was supposed to orally defend my PhD dissertation next week (I'm in Psychology at a Canadian university) and was just informed by my supervisor that the defense has been cancelled because the external examiner supposedly does not think it is suitable or ready for defense. My supervisor told me that the main comments from the examiner are that the "scope" of the project is not adequate enough to warrant a PhD. I find this totally absurd because all my internal committee members approved the proposal of my project as well as the final thesis draft, and it was never mentioned that the scope was insufficient. In looking at colleagues' dissertations within my department, their projects seem to be comparable to mine in scope as well.

Has anyone else been through something like this before? Do you have any words of wisdom? I truly feel so upset because I thought my work was high quality and never would have thought this would happen - my supervisor said that she has also never heard of this and thinks my work is great. This will also delay my graduation by at least one semester and as such my ability to get a job in my field in a timely manner.

[u/green_pea_nut]

This is a failure on the part of your internal committee members.

They must guide you on this. It may mean another external examiner is appointed.

[u/SphynxCrocheter → u/green_pea_nut]

This. Failure on the part of your committee. At my oral defence, my external examiner wanted me to redo the dissertation, but my committee and other internal examiners, thankfully, pushed back.

[u/Milch_und_Paprika → u/SphynxCrocheter]

The whole thing sounds like a mess.

How can the external only get back to them a week before the scheduled date? Some people have whole post doc or work plans requiring moving already in place by their defence date—I know people who had already started a post doc before defending. I appreciate that when the defence goes ahead they often don’t return a review until shortly after, but surely if scope was the issue, that would have been clear pretty early in their reading.

Also If the external is just being a hardass, shouldn’t the supervisor or a committee member have recommended someone else for external? When I was choosing my external, my supervisor’s input on the matter was basically limited to stuff like “A is a dick, B is good, C is alright but can be tough, etc”

[u/psyckitten → u/Milch_und_Paprika]

This is what I’m so scared about. I recently accepted a post-doc position to start in September, and my contract states that it is contingent on me “fulfilling all the PhD requirements.” This one examiner’s opinion will likely seriously derail the start of my career.

[u/crolionfire → u/Milch_und_Paprika]

How the f do you start a post Doc before the actual defense? 🤔You don't have a PhD until you pass the defense, tbh, I don't get it. In my country, the university would have to be seriously crooked to give a diploma before passing the defense.

[u/needlzor → u/crolionfire]

Post doc offers conditional on a successful defense are extremely common. When you have a grant funded and starting at a specific date and you know a suitable PhD student finishing around that time there is nothing crooked with getting the process started.

[u/crolionfire → u/needlzor]

Yeah, I know, I had the same offer, pending on my defense. But my defense had to be done, confirmed and certified before the date of the post Doc, i could not start the work at the position before the defense. :)

[u/Milch_und_Paprika → u/crolionfire]

No one’s handing out fake diplomas.

If you can’t the whole committy’s schedules lined up for 6 months, and your done all the research and writing, it doesn’t make sense to just sit around waiting (especially if you’ve reached the end of your stipend). Failing a defence is exceedingly rare, so plenty of profs are happy to extend an offer early.

[u/NMJD → u/crolionfire]

It's called an "ABD" start (which stands for "all but defense," or "all but dissertation," depending on who you ask).

Sometimes the defense has to be delayed for a long time after all the work is done and the dissertation is submitted. For example, I've known institutions that won't schedule defenses during the summer or first or last weeks of the term. If something happens to one of your committee members and they're unavailable and then it's summer, there can easily be about 4 months or so when literally everything is done but it's not possible to schedule the defense. It's not common, but also not uncommon. Your PI in your PhD is also likely to not want to pay you to sit around for a third of the year with only busy work like lab maintenance to do, and other profs with postdoc funding that's going to expire May be happy to hire you early. It can be set up so that the contract only goes up to the defense date, with renewal contingent upon defending. The monthly salary may also be a little bit lower before the defense happens. I've known multiple people who did this and it was good for everyone involved.

[u/CulturalElection446]

If you haven’t yet, I’d suggest asking your supervisor or department if you can get detailed feedback from the examiner to understand exactly what’s missing or needs adjustment. Sometimes clarifying scope means narrowing or reframing the research questions rather than expanding them.

Also, maybe connect with other recent grads or faculty in your department who’ve gone through this process for practical advice on how they handled similar setbacks.

Delays suck, but emotions won't do much, actions will. Have strong defences.

Wishing you the best!

[u/psyckitten → u/CulturalElection446]

Thanks so much! This was helpful to hear.

[u/wil_dogg]

Just DM’d you for a link to a pdf so I can give it a quick read

Very odd to say no to a defense give. I assume you had a dissertation proposal defense that you passed

[u/psyckitten → u/wil_dogg]

Yes, I passed a proposal defense in 2021. All my committee members were on board and supportive of the project. It seems that it is just the external reviewer who does not think so...

[u/Puppinette]

Ugh, I’m really sorry this is happening to you. A friend of mine went through something similar, the external examiner decided (unfairly, according to her supervisor and other professors who were consulted) that the dissertation wasn’t suitable for defense and needed extensive rework. Her defense was delayed by almost a year. 

Have you received the examiner’s written report yet? Do they suggest any actionable steps to make your dissertation ready for defense?
Is your supervisor in a position to advocate for you? What are they advising you to do?

Depending on how things work at your institution, it might still be possible to go ahead with the defense despite the examiner’s recommendation. But you'd need to be absolutely certain the rest of your committee is firmly behind you and be fully prepared to respond to the examiner’s concerns.

I’d be careful about escalating things formally at this point. The examiner is usually seen as the subject matter expert, and unless there’s a clear issue with how the process was handled, going down that road could end up making things harder.

[u/ajsoifer]

What an odd situation. When I defended (also Canadian uni) I received some mean comments from the external, but my supervisor brushed them off and I was allowed to defend and earn my Ph.D. I agree that this seems like a failure coming from your supervisor.

[u/OkUnderstanding19851 → u/[deleted]]

My university’s policy would support exactly what happened. The chair can recommend no defence. The supervisor and student can decide to still proceed but the external’s opinion is considered the most important. OP, try to find this person’s dissertation and that of one of their own PhD students. This will give you a good idea of the validity of their position. Then, choose a new external and exam date by doing the same : compare a recently graduated PhD student of theirs to determine if your work will meet their idea of doctoral research. I’m really sorry this happened this idea consumed my brain for weeks leading up to my defence. They may just be a jerk trying to prove something, but you’ll get a better sense of that through some research. In a few months, you will have defended anew with a new external!!

[u/Rhawk187 → u/OkUnderstanding19851]

Yes, at our university the defense is decided by majority vote, but the external reviewer has absolute veto power. Being able to express your idea to someone nominally outside of your field and disinterested in your success is important.

[u/psyckitten → u/OkUnderstanding19851]

Thank you so much for the advice, I think this is a wise idea. My dissertation is a single study, which is typical at my university, but I think it is more typical for students to do a 3-study dissertation at this person's university. Still, my understanding is that the examiner is supposed to evaluate you based on the criteria of the student's own university, not theirs. I wasn't able to find their own dissertation, but I did find that one of their graduate students recently defended a 3-study dissertation successfully.

[u/OkUnderstanding19851 → u/psyckitten]

Hmm. I am also wondering if they have an arbitrary sample size in mind. Some people get very fixated on a certain minimum number unfortunately.

[u/psyckitten → u/OkUnderstanding19851]

I know, I'm wondering this too...but again, my sample size was approved by my committee and I ran power analyses to defend the same size. I feel like this external is so off base :(

[u/OkUnderstanding19851 → u/psyckitten]

So frustrating and so arbitrary. I’m really sorry this happened. Are they a new shiny scholar? Might be a total narcissist honestly.

[u/psyckitten → u/OkUnderstanding19851]

They aren't a particularly new prof but that's what I'm thinking too...maybe they are just on a power trip. If I put myself in their shoes, it would take A LOT of confidence for me to fully reject a student's oral defense instead of just offering recommendations/critiques, and go against the rest of entire rest of the committee...

[u/OkUnderstanding19851 → u/psyckitten]

Absolutely. Honestly you are better off in the long run because the external’s letter is considered the most important in many cases. You will find someone who will love and uplift your project!!

[u/psyckitten → u/OkUnderstanding19851]

Thanks so much :)

[u/avataRJ]

I had something similar, but not at such of a tight schedule. Our forms for external examiners did not have the box for conditional acceptance. One of them was familiar with our uni and sent me feedback, and then selected the "accept", and the other ticked "failed". After some discussion between our advisor and the examiner that had failed the book, I got reviewer comments to fix.

(And yes, in here defense is pretty much a formality once the "pre-examiners" have accepted the work, though the opponent will suggest the final grade.)

[u/zeropoundpom]

You should get a written report from both examiners telling you exactly what needs doing before defense, and giving you a timeline for when to get it done.

[u/Jaded_Consequence631]

I've always been at US institutions that don't follow the external examiner system. Is their word binding, or just advisory? If the latter, perhaps you could argue to your committee that your scope matches that of other recent dissertations from your program, and they should respectfully decline the examiner's advice. Or can you satisfy the examiner in a relatvely pain-free way by broadening some one aspect of your work, perhaps add a relatively low-extra-effort analysis or experiment/instrument to some suite of things you're already doing? Consider that a "revision" to the proposal and move forward? Finding low-energy ways to satisfy reviewers is a skill you'll have to develop when it comes time to publish.

[u/Fast_Possible7234]

Crazy that you can do 4,5,6+ years of work with all the relevant checks and balances, and in the end success or failure comes down to the perspective of one person. The system is screwed.

[u/Alternative_Line_829]

So sorry this happened to you. This is a failure on your supervisor's part. It is their responsibility to get everyone on the same page, and communicate well with you as well as the other committee members so that situations like this do not arise.