Ok it is really not that horrid. But it is most definitely all of those areas unless you suffer from flat affect or are a savant and a narcissist. Most defences start off with the typical presentation of your work. This process is usually allotted to a 15 to 20 minute time slot. I kind of feel that this is where the first ‘set up’ occurs. How one can be expected to adequately explain a year of research in the lab or in the field in 20 minutes, including a literature review as well, is beyond me. This just screams of inadequacy to me and is bound to have the panel and attendee’s full of questions regarding what you did not cover.
It is possible to take this to your own advantage. I think the challenge to getting through the defence as unscathed as possible is to control it. And I say as “unscathed as possible” because I believe it is impossible to come out without any war wounds. How do you control it? Well full control is impossible. There is absolutely no way you can prepare for every possible question that is going to come at you. However, since there is a limited amount of time, an intelligent approach would be to ensure that as many of those questions are ones you are fully prepared to answer.
You are probably confused. How could one do such a thing? Well it’s a little deceptive. Not in a academic or research sense that would be unethical. I think the first trick is to leave a few red hearings in your presentation. If people will probably wonder why you did a particular transformation or sampled a population in a particular way leave it out of your presentation. After all you are already strapped for time. But leaving these obvious concerns uncovered is bound to peak some interest. Why did he not cover that they will wonder. Is something wrong with his data there? They will usually ask. And that is the moment where you can shine. Whip out the fully prepared overhead or PowerPoint slide. And show them exactly how intelligent you are as you flex your mighty brain and fully answer their question!
