opening remarks in research defense

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to prepare an excellent thesis defense

What is a thesis defense?

How long is a thesis defense, what happens at a thesis defense, your presentation, questions from the committee, 6 tips to help you prepare for your thesis defense, 1. anticipate questions and prepare for them, 2. dress for success, 3. ask for help, as needed, 4. have a backup plan, 5. prepare for the possibility that you might not know an answer, 6. de-stress before, during, and after, frequently asked questions about preparing an excellent thesis defense, related articles.

If you're about to complete, or have ever completed a graduate degree, you have most likely come across the term "thesis defense." In many countries, to finish a graduate degree, you have to write a thesis .

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

Once you hand in your thesis, you will be assigned a date to defend your work. Your thesis defense meeting usually consists of you and a committee of two or more professors working in your program. It may also include other people, like professionals from other colleges or those who are working in your field.

During your thesis defense, you will be asked questions about your work. The main purpose of your thesis defense is for the committee to make sure that you actually understand your field and focus area.

The questions are usually open-ended and require the student to think critically about their work. By the time of your thesis defense, your paper has already been evaluated. The questions asked are not designed so that you actually have to aggressively "defend" your work; often, your thesis defense is more of a formality required so that you can get your degree.

• Check with your department about requirements and timing.
• Re-read your thesis.
• Anticipate questions and prepare for them.
• Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups.
• Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense.

How long your oral thesis defense is depends largely on the institution and requirements of your degree. It is best to consult your department or institution about this. In general, a thesis defense may take only 20 minutes, but it may also take two hours or more. The length also depends on how much time is allocated to the presentation and questioning part.

Tip: Check with your department or institution as soon as possible to determine the approved length for a thesis defense.

First of all, be aware that a thesis defense varies from country to country. This is just a general overview, but a thesis defense can take many different formats. Some are closed, others are public defenses. Some take place with two committee members, some with more examiners.

The same goes for the length of your thesis defense, as mentioned above. The most important first step for you is to clarify with your department what the structure of your thesis defense will look like. In general, your thesis defense will include:

• your presentation of around 20-30 minutes
• questions from the committee
• questions from the audience (if the defense is public and the department allows it)

You might have to give a presentation, often with Powerpoint, Google slides, or Keynote slides. Make sure to prepare an appropriate amount of slides. A general rule is to use about 10 slides for a 20-minute presentation.

But that also depends on your specific topic and the way you present. The good news is that there will be plenty of time ahead of your thesis defense to prepare your slides and practice your presentation alone and in front of friends or family.

Tip: Practice delivering your thesis presentation in front of family, friends, or colleagues.

You can prepare your slides by using information from your thesis' first chapter (the overview of your thesis) as a framework or outline. Substantive information in your thesis should correspond with your slides.

Make sure your slides are of good quality— both in terms of the integrity of the information and the appearance. If you need more help with how to prepare your presentation slides, both the ASQ Higher Education Brief and James Hayton have good guidelines on the topic.

The committee will ask questions about your work after you finish your presentation. The questions will most likely be about the core content of your thesis, such as what you learned from the study you conducted. They may also ask you to summarize certain findings and to discuss how your work will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Tip: Read your entire thesis in preparation of the questions, so you have a refreshed perspective on your work.

While you are preparing, you can create a list of possible questions and try to answer them. You can foresee many of the questions you will get by simply spending some time rereading your thesis.

Here are a few tips on how to prepare for your thesis defense:

You can absolutely prepare for most of the questions you will be asked. Read through your thesis and while you're reading it, create a list of possible questions. In addition, since you will know who will be on the committee, look at the academic expertise of the committee members. In what areas would they most likely be focused?

If possible, sit at other thesis defenses with these committee members to get a feel for how they ask and what they ask. As a graduate student, you should generally be adept at anticipating test questions, so use this advantage to gather as much information as possible before your thesis defense meeting.

Your thesis defense is a formal event, often the entire department or university is invited to participate. It signals a critical rite of passage for graduate students and faculty who have supported them throughout a long and challenging process.

While most universities don't have specific rules on how to dress for that event, do regard it with dignity and respect. This one might be a no-brainer, but know that you should dress as if you were on a job interview or delivering a paper at a conference.

It might help you deal with your stress before your thesis defense to entrust someone with the smaller but important responsibilities of your defense well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for:

• preparing the room of the day of defense
• setting up equipment for the presentation
• preparing and distributing handouts

Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your Powerpoint presentation will work at all or look the way it is supposed to on the big screen. We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Handouts can help when technology fails, and an additional clean shirt can save the day if you have a spill.

One of the scariest aspects of the defense is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. While you can prepare for some questions, you can never know exactly what the committee will ask.

There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. You are not expected to know everything.

James Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to, out of curiosity, or because they want to see how you think. While it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] in order to find out.” This shows that you have the ability to think as an academic.

You will be nervous. But your examiners will expect you to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions, for example. Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com notes that it’s a myth that thesis committees are out to get you.

Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking really fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Remember what feels like hours to you are just a few seconds in real life.

• Try meditational breathing right before your defense.
• Get plenty of exercise and sleep in the weeks prior to your defense.
• Have your clothes or other items you need ready to go the night before.
• During your defense, allow yourself to process each question before answering.
• Go to dinner with friends and family, or to a fun activity like mini-golf, after your defense.

Allow yourself to process each question, respond to it, and stop talking once you have responded. While a smile can often help dissolve a difficult situation, remember that nervous laughs can be irritating for your audience.

We all make mistakes and your thesis defense will not be perfect. However, careful preparation, mindfulness, and confidence can help you feel less stressful both before, and during, your defense.

Finally, consider planning something fun that you can look forward to after your defense.

It is completely normal to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions for example if needed. Slow yourself down, and take a deep breath.

Your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. James Hayton writes on his blog that it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", but he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, you would need to do [...] in order to find out".

Your Powerpoint presentation can get stuck or not look the way it is supposed to do on the big screen. It can happen and your supervisors know it. In general, handouts can always save the day when technology fails.

• Dress for success.
• Ask for help setting up.
• Have a backup plan (in case technology fails you).
• Deal with your nerves.

Higher Ed Professor

Demystifying higher education.

• Productivity
• Issue Discussion
• Current Events

Defending your dissertation proposal

T he dissertation proposal and defense represent key milestones in the journey to the degree (Bowen, 2005). Each section of the proposal meets goals critical not just to a successful proposal defense but to the success of the entire dissertation research endeavor. When you and your faculty advisor agree that the dissertation proposal is complete, you will schedule a proposal defense. Ideally, your academic program will inform you in advance of the expected timeline. Within this timeline, you will then work with your advisor and committee members to determine a day and time for the defense. Institutional norms and policies likely require that the finished proposal be provided to the committee a specific number of days or weeks in advance of the defense. Typically, you should expect to provide at least two weeks lead time prior to the proposal defense (Butin, 2010). In today’s post, I will share some details on what to expect and how to prepare for defending your dissertation proposal.

The proposal defense serves two functions. First, the defense allows you to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic and the research process. Second, the defense ensures that you move forward with the dissertation in the strongest possible position. Your chair and committee should make sure you are prepared to complete the study, and that the study is feasible in terms of research design and timeline (Lei, 2009). In effect, a successful proposal defense (and the resulting faculty signatures of approval) constitutes an agreement between the student, the chair, and the committee. For the committee, the agreement codifies that you have done the proper due diligence and can produce a quality dissertation; for you, the approval provides the security of knowing that the committee supports the intended research design and direction.

After setting the defense date and providing a copy of the proposal to the committee, you should prepare for the defense. In most cases, you should not make edits or changes to the proposal after sending it to the committee, even if you notice typographical errors or other small issues. The committee takes care and time to read and prepare questions based on the document they receive; making changes after the document is sent defeats this purpose. While you should not change the document itself, you do need spend time preparing your oral remarks for the proposal defense. Of course, the expectations for this element of the dissertation process vary according to institution and/or dissertation chair preferences; nevertheless, all students can expect to engage in at least a short oral presentation of the proposed study. The committee will have read your proposal at this point, so prepare a talk that summarizes just the main ideas of your dissertation. Let’s say you are asked to present for no more than 15-30 minutes (this practice is a common one). You may want to divide this time into thirds and spend 5-10 minutes on each chapter of your proposal. Additionally, check with your chair to determine if technology is available in the room, if you are expected to use technology, or if handouts or other written materials are expected or preferred.

In addition to preparing for the proposal defense, you may also spend the time between the proposal submission and defense by preparing documents for eventual submission for human subjects research review. Often called the Institutional Review Board or IRB, this department on campus oversees human subject research. Approval from this university office, in addition to the dissertation committee, must be received before moving to data collection. These documents should not  be submitted prior to the proposal defense, since changes to the research design commonly occur at the proposal defense and would need to be incorporated into the final human subjects review proposal submission.

You should enter a proposal defense with the expectation of edits. A student rarely if ever leaves a defense without edits. The amount and extent of edits may vary, but feedback that clarifies and strengthens the dissertation serves as the primary outcome of a proposal defense. Edits do not necessarily mean that the original dissertation design was weak; rather, you should think of the defense and feedback from the committee as a collaborative process resulting in an even stronger study (Lei, 2009). After you present an oral summary of the proposal at the defense, committee members often take turns asking questions, sometimes in round-robin style, but other times in conversation with you and each other. You may be asked why you made specific choices as opposed to alternative options in the research design or to explain the logic that led to a specific design feature. The conversation can last for over an hour depending on the topic and the committee members. When the defense reaches a stopping point, you may be asked to leave the room for the committee to deliberate about next steps.

While what happens inside the room once you leave may seem mysterious, it is actually straightforward. The committee primarily discusses what edits, and in what form, they will require you to complete. Once everyone is satisfied, you will be called back into the room and informed of next steps. Three possible outcomes exist from a proposal defense.

• Pass without edits. The committee approves your dissertation proposal with no additional changes requested. Note: This is quite rare.
• Pass with edits. The committee approves your dissertation proposal pending edits. The requested revisions may be small or major, but do not require you to re-defend your dissertation proposal.
• The committee does not approve you moving forward, which means major changes or even a complete overhaul of your entire proposal is necessary. Unless you have pushed for a defense without your chair’s approval or failed to do what was requested during the proposal writing process, this outcome should not happen.

When edits are required, they will be shared with you after the proposal defense or perhaps in a subsequent meeting with the chair, depending on your chair’s preferences. Your committee may have raised a number of potential revisions during the proposal defense, but not all of these will be required. Working with your chair, you will create a to-do list of all issues to be addressed in response to the critiques and suggestions of the committee. Timelines can vary, but two actions generally must be taken at this point: 1) The submission of your human subjects review materials and 2) edits to the proposal. While IRB documents are usually submitted before  students turn back to the proposal to make the needed edits, the order of these actions may vary between institutions.

A useful way to tackle the committee’s edits is to take the notes from the proposal defense and place them in one column of a two-column table. In the other column, outline the specific edit you made in response to the committee’s suggestion—you should undertake this tracking process while making edits to the proposal. Make sure to include the edits as well as their respective page numbers in your proposal. This format helps keep you accountable to all the committee’s requested changes and facilitates a later review by the chair and/or committee. You can include the list of revisions when submitting the revised proposal to the chair and, if requested, the committee.

Some committee members may want to see the revised proposal, while others are comfortable delegating that responsibility to the dissertation chair. Confirm with the committee and chair about their preference for overseeing this process at the proposal defense. In addition, you should know if and when the committee members are willing to sign the institutional documents accompanying a successful proposal defense. Ask your advisor, program administrator, or other faculty which documents are necessary for the defense and if you need to bring those with you. These documents signify that you have officially advanced to doctoral candidacy, a key step of the doctoral process.

Deutsch Institut

Developing a solid opening statement for your dissertation defense.

Defending a dissertation properly is equally important as its writing. If you don’t prepare for your defense, your final score will be low even if your paper is brilliant. One of the main parts of a defense is making an opening statement. Below, you may read the tips that will help you prepare an opening statement that will draw the interest of your committee and other listeners.

• Grab the attention of your audience.

You should start your speech with some attention-grabbing fact related to your topic. This will help you make your audience interested in the subject of your dissertation so that they will continue listening to your speech.

• Provide background information.

Briefly, tell your listeners about the history of your topic. Start with the first study made in this area of research and list the discoveries that were made by other investigators. This way, you’ll give your audience the context necessary to understand your following statements.

• Mention the significance.

Research shouldn’t be done for the sake of research. Tell about the greater goal behind your work. Usually, investigators try to fill in the gaps in the knowledge of particular fields in order to use this knowledge properly and make the world a better place.

• State your research question.

Finally, you should focus on the main goal of your particular study and list the questions that you’re going to answer in your paper. Make sure that these questions seem logical and clear.

The main thing you should remember to defend your dissertation successfully is that you should practice your speech a lot. Practice in front of a mirror every day to make amendments in your behavior, give little speeches in front of your friends and family from time to time, and visit the defenses of other students in order to learn what you should do and what mistakes you should avoid.

You’ll also need a good presentation to support your words with illustrations, graphs, tables, and so on. This is also a very significant part of your defense. If you have problems with creating presentations, you may visit this company. They’ll provide you with a custom-made presentation of the highest quality based on your paper. Such companies may also provide you with other services related to dissertation writing. They may proofread your text and eliminate different spelling and grammar mistakes that occurred during the writing process. They may even write an entire dissertation from scratch if necessary. However, such services will cost you a pretty penny.

Get thesis help online - they write from scratch.

• History dissertation
• Writing company
• Ordering a paper
• Doc formatting tips
• APA thesis cover page
• Hiring a writer
• Standard format

Useful Sites

Professional writing service - MyPaperWriter .

How to Effectively Prepare for Your Thesis Defense

You’ve completed your research study, written your thesis, and think you’re done! If only it were this easy. Before you finish with your thesis, there is one last hurdle to overcome: the thesis defense.

What is a thesis defense?

A thesis defense is an opportunity for you to present your research study before other academic professionals who will evaluate the quality of your academic work. While a thesis defense can sometimes feel like a cross-examination in a court of law, in reality, there is no need to fear your thesis defense as long as you are well-prepared. In this article, we’ll talk about how to prepare for a thesis defense, what to expect at the defense itself, and what comes after your defense. 

Why do I have to defend my thesis?

At your thesis defense, you will discuss everything you’ve learned with a group of interested examiners who are eager to hear your thoughts.

The fundamental purpose of a thesis defense is to prove that you have mastered your subject and can be considered as a knowledgeable expert in your field, thereby allowing you to graduate successfully. For many students, a thesis is one of the first attempts at conducting original research and demonstrating that you are equipped to function as an independent expert in your field. If qualified academic professionals can assess your work, question your methods and results, and confirm that your study is sound and novel, then you meet the requirements.

The exact format and expectations for your thesis defense will differ depending on the region you study in and your institution’s rules for the thesis program. The thesis defense meeting may have just two or three examiners or may have a whole panel of examiners along with an audience. 

If the thought of facing your professors, peers, and parents to present your research study makes you feel dizzy, you aren’t alone . Moreover, a thesis defense is a great opportunity for you to hone your public speaking skills as well as talk about your research study. At your thesis defense, you will discuss everything you’ve learned with a group of interested examiners who are eager to hear your thoughts.

While the format for a thesis defense will vary, as mentioned above, most thesis defenses consist of:

• Presenting your research study (using PowerPoint or other similar tools)
• Answering questions from your thesis committee
• Receiving feedback from your thesis committee

So how can you prepare for it? Let’s talk about some important tips.

Preparing: Before the defense

It is useful to attend multiple defenses and ask others who have gone through the process what it was like.

The best way to prepare for a thesis defense is to attend other defenses at your institution so that you know what to expect. It is useful to attend multiple defenses and ask others who have gone through the process what it was like. Senior students are often happy to provide advice and can give you specific insights about particular examiners as well as details of the administrative process at your institution.

You should also talk to your thesis advisor well in advance of your defense about what to expect. Ask whether you need to shortlist your own committee, how long your presentation should be, and how long the thesis defense will be. The duration of a thesis defense varies by the degree level as well as the institution. On average, expect your defense to be at least an hour long, possibly longer for a Ph.D.

What should my presentation cover and how can I prepare it?

While preparing your presentation, also prepare a list of questions and answers that you think are likely to be asked by your committee.

You will need to prepare a presentation that will cover the details of your research study. It is wise to rehearse this presentation multiple times in advance of your thesis defense so that you will be comfortable when you actually present in front of your audience. While preparing your presentation, also prepare a list of questions and answers that you think are likely to be asked by your committee. If you can, enlist the help of a classmate or friend to be the examiner. They can ask you questions about your research study so you will be able to practice addressing these questions.

One mistake many students make is assuming that all members of their defense committee will thoroughly read their thesis prior to the defense. This is simply not always the case. For this reason, you should make sure your presentation makes sense to someone who has not actually read your thesis. A typical thesis defense presentation gives:

• An introduction to the topic
• Explains how the study is significant in the field
• Covers the main highlights of the methodology and results of the study
• Picks out the main points from the discussion and conclusion

What should I do the day before my defense?

Before your thesis defense, make sure you have backups of everything you need saved in multiple formats and multiple locations.

Before your thesis defense, make sure you have backups of everything you need to be saved in multiple formats and multiple locations. Put your presentation and your thesis on a USB drive, email it to yourself, upload it to the cloud, and print it out. Leave nothing to chance: you want to be absolutely prepared to defend your thesis short of an act of God obliterating the venue. In addition, make sure you prepare hard copies (printouts) of both your thesis and slideshow for the committee members. It need not be professionally bound at this stage, but they will appreciate having reference material on hand.

Finally, there are some practical steps to take in preparation for the thesis defense. Choose your outfit in advance (you should dress professionally) and practice presenting in it. You should also make sure you know the exact location of the thesis defense venue. Scope out the venue before your defense, if possible, so you can imagine yourself there while you rehearse. If you are presenting virtually, test all your equipment in advance and have a backup plan in case your internet goes out or your computer suddenly crashes. Most importantly, make sure that you eat well and get proper rest the night before. Don’t stay up late rehearsing last minute in the hopes of improving your chances of passing your defense. You will do much better if you are well-rested and alert. 

Time to shine: At the defense

Try to stay calm and remember you are not on trial!

What can you expect on the day of the defense?

Typically, you will enter the room, set up, and begin your presentation once the committee indicates that they are ready. As mentioned above, it is always advisable to bring hard copies of both your thesis and slideshow for the committee. That way, they can easily refer to what you are talking about as you present. Make sure you also bring a pencil and notebook with you to take notes, and some water, because you will get thirsty as you talk.

After you are done with the presentation, the committee members will ask questions. Try to stay calm and remember you are not on trial! Your committee generally wants you to succeed, but they also want you to prove that you really know what you’re talking about. Do your best to answer their questions and never be afraid to admit when you don’t know something. It is much better, to be honest than to be caught lying or making something up during your thesis defense.

After the question and answer session, depending on your institution, you may be asked to leave the room while the committee deliberates. You may also be present while they discuss the merits of your defense and make suggestions for how to revise it. Alternatively, they might adjourn to another room if there is a large audience present. After they deliberate, they will usually thank you for your time, and your defense will be over. At some institutions, they will inform you if you passed right away, while at others, you will find out after a few days. 

How does my committee decide if my work is good or not?

In general, you can expect your thesis defense and your thesis as a whole to be evaluated based on the below criteria:

• Whether the thesis meets the departmental requirements
• Whether the research study is logical and clear
• Whether the stated objectives are met in the study
• Use of primary and secondary literature
• Use of relevant and up-to-date sources
• Methodological rigor
• Your ability to critically analyze data, facts, relevant literature, and synthesize information into a coherent narrative
• Writing quality and flow
• The validity of your conclusions based on your data and analysis
• The relevance and importance of your research study in the field
• Your ability to clearly and coherently present what your thesis is about
• Your ability to answer questions about your work accurately and in-depth
• Your ability to acknowledge and consider other theories or perspectives and explain why you dismissed one theory in favor of another

In summary, the examining committee want to know:

• Did you meet the thesis criteria set by your institution?
• Did you perform high-quality research work?
• Do you know what you are talking about?

After the defense: What’s next?

After your thesis is approved, you will need to have it professionally bound and then submit copies to your university.

After your thesis defense, you should definitely celebrate and congratulate yourself for all your hard work! Unfortunately, you aren’t quite done yet. Although the committee may notify you about passing, it is also very likely that you will be asked to make some changes to your thesis before you are finally done. You should work with your advisor to finalize and incorporate any comments you received into your work as quickly as possible.

After your thesis is approved, you will need to have it professionally bound and then submit copies to your university. You will also get the chance to order copies for yourself. This process also differs by institution, so make sure you talk to the administration department to figure out what you need to do and when to complete this process.

All in all, while a thesis defense is a scary and overwhelming event, it is also an incredible achievement. Earning your degree is no small feat, and you should definitely feel proud of yourself once you have done it! Check out our site for more tips on how to write a good thesis, where to find the best thesis editing services , and more about thesis editing and proofreading services .

Editor’s pick

Get free updates.

Subscribe to our newsletter for regular insights from the research and publishing industry!

Review Checklist

To prepare for your thesis defense, make sure that you:

Find out your institutional requirements

Talk to your advisor well in advance about what to expect and prepare

Attend defenses of other students to see what they are like

Prepare your presentation early so you can rehearse it

Rehearse your presentation with a timer

Make a list of questions and answers about your research study

Enlist a friend to be the examiner and ask you questions

Prepare multiple backups of your materials (USB drive, Google Drive/Cloud storage, email, hard copy) 

Have a plan for computer/internet problems if you are presenting virtually

Eat well and get a good night’s rest before the defense

Arrive at the defense venue early enough to test any IT equipment or internet connection

What should I do to prepare for my thesis defense? +

• Find out your institution’s requirements
• Attend other thesis defenses
• Speak to your advisor
• Prepare and practice your presentation
• Enlist a friend or classmate to act as the examiner and ask you questions while you practice

How long is a typical thesis defense? +

Every institution is different, but most thesis defenses are at least an hour long.

What should my thesis presentation actually contain? +

 A typical thesis defense presentation introduces the thesis topic, explains how your study is significant in the field, and covers the main highlights of the methodology and results of the study. It finally picks out the main points from the discussion and conclusion section of your thesis.

What if I fail my thesis defense? +

The odds that you will fail are extremely low! Most advisors and committees do not let a candidate schedule a defense unless they feel the candidate is ready. So, don’t worry about it. However, if you do fail for some reason, your institution will have a process for you to apply to try again.

How Do I Prepare for a Successful Defence?

Vivas and Presentations

• First Online: 19 October 2023

Cite this chapter

• Sue Reeves   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3017-0559 3 &
• Bartek Buczkowski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-3664 4  

273 Accesses

Once you have submitted your dissertation, you may be asked to do a defence of your dissertation. This could be in the form of an oral presentation, a poster presentation of your findings, or you could be invited to a viva voce. Vivas, as they are usually known, are particularly common for research degrees such as MPhils or PhDs and are essentially a verbal defence of your thesis that is conducted in an interview style format. At a minimum, the viva is a way of checking you authored the thesis yourself and understand the detail, but it is also an opportunity to discuss your research findings and interpretations in depth with experts. Preparation is key for defending your thesis in a viva or a presentation format. With a bit of groundwork, you could even enjoy the discussion, after all the thesis is the culmination of all your hard work, and no one knows it better than you.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ratcliffe R (2015) How to survive a PhD viva: 17 top tips. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jan/08/how-to-survive-a-phd-viva-17-top-tips. Accessed 3 Mar 2023

Further Reading

Levin P, Topping G (2006) Perfect presentations. Open University Press

Google Scholar  

Smith P (2014) The PhD viva: how to prepare for your oral examination. Macmillan, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Roehampton, London, UK

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Bartek Buczkowski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Reeves, S., Buczkowski, B. (2023). How Do I Prepare for a Successful Defence?. In: Mastering Your Dissertation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41911-9_14

Published : 19 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41910-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41911-9

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Slidesgo School
• Presentation Tips

How to Start a Thesis Defense Presentation

After months and years of hard work, the moment to wrap things all up is finally here—your thesis defense presentation.

Whether you’re pursuing a master’s degree or doctorate, it’s the final step to that much-deserved achievement. 

A thesis defense requires a lot of prior research and preparation. And as important as its content is, so is how you present it because a stunning design with clear data and text hierarchy plays an immense role in comprehension.

In this article, we’ll explore how you make your thesis defense .

The organization is the key to success. Establishing some previous steps before any project or work is essential for the result to be very positive. And the defense of a thesis could not be less. 

Below, we will develop all the necessary steps to make a thesis defense presentation and we will give you some tips on how to carry them out.

How to Make an Amazing Presentation

Defining the concept of your thesis presentation, structuring your thesis defense presentation, how do you welcome the audience, tell them why you did this thesis, go into the content by explaining your thesis part by part, how to end the defense of the thesis.

After a long time of research and study, the content of your thesis is ready. Now, you have to find the best way to reflect all that effort behind your work. The information comes across more clearly if you use a visual format, as it attracts the attention of the audience. To present your thesis information in a clear, concise, and ultimately amazing way, you can use one of our unique thesis defense templates , available at Slidesgo.

As an example, in this article, we are going to use the Ecology Thesis template . With it, we will show you what to include in your presentation and how to make an attractive design.

After choosing the Google Slides and PowerPoint template that best suits the needs and subject matter of your thesis, it is time to define an overarching concept.

This is the main theme on which your designs are based. It must be relevant to your thesis as its purpose is to guide your selection of colors, typography, images, style, etc. 

These must be portrayed in a way that supports the main message of your slides and should be aligned with your concept both visually and sociologically.

Once you have defined the concept, you will have to move on to the next step: structuring the content of your thesis. A good structure will show that there is a good organization behind the work, but most importantly: it will highlight your content.

In this article, we are going to show you a structure that could be a good example of how to structure a thesis, but you can adapt it to what your specific content requires.

Before you begin your thesis defense, you should welcome your audience. A good presentation will make you connect with your audience, which will result in more general interest in your work.

Use an appropriate language register (avoid informal language), but be approachable and natural.

"Welcome to the thesis defense on [the title of your thesis]". Next, introduce yourself with your name and give a short description of your background and occupation.

Don't forget to say “thank you for attending!”

To continue establishing that connection with your audience, explain the reasons that led you to do this thesis. Tell the professional reasons, and you can even say some personal ones, which will denote closeness, and your audience will appreciate it.

Now it's time to go into the content of the thesis ! After these preliminary steps, which are just as important as the thesis itself, it is time to explain part by part the structure (which you had previously established). We are going to propose a structure for your project, but the final decision is always yours!

First impressions are very important. Because your title page is the very first thing viewers see, it must be striking and impactful. It also sets the stage for the rest of your slides.

In one glance, the following should be established:

• Thesis defense topic
• Design style

For instance, the ecology thesis’s title page uses illustrations of a natural landscape to represent the topic of nature and a striking shade of blue to set the tone.

The sans serif font used depicts clean-cut typography and style and the thesis topic is written in large and bold typography, which draws attention to it immediately.

Right after your title page, include an introduction slide to provide more details about your topic. 

This means explaining what you hope to answer with your research, its importance to your field, and why you chose it.

Continue to incorporate design elements relevant to your concept. This example has done just that by using a different natural landscape and including animals. For coherence, stick to the same typography and style throughout your presentation.

The aim of the literature review slide is to illustrate your knowledge of your thesis topic and any relevant theories.

Walls of text kill a design. For clarity, we recommend presenting this with bullet points. Each one should be short and sweet and only touch on the basics; you can elaborate on them in your speech. 

Don’t forget to be consistent with your design. In our example, we’ve maintained the tone of blue chosen and added illustrations of leaves in the far corners of the slide. 

Also, address similar research that has been done. This is to showcase your topic’s originality and, if relevant, how it’s different and/or an improvement from previously done research. 

This is one of the most important parts of a thesis defense presentation.

It allows your viewers to assess the rationality and validity of your approach and consequently, the accuracy of your results.

A great methodology slide explains the what , how, and why :

• What method did you use for your research
• Why did you choose it
• How did you conduct it

Because this part of your thesis will be rather technical, the most effective way to aid understanding is by using graphics like charts and tables. 

Keep text to a minimum to avoid drawing attention away from the graphics. If there is a text that must absolutely be included, consider using bullet points and keep them short.

Don’t forget to maintain color, style, and typography coherence.

The results slides are easily the most quantitative part of a thesis defense. 

Here, your aim is to simply introduce your findings. Select the most impactful data and highlight them here.

Just as with methodology, use graphics like charts, tables, and graphs to portray the data in a clear way. And, once again, try not to write too much text. Let the visual content do the talking .

After you’ve introduced your data, the next step would be to help your audience make sense of it. That means understanding what it means in the context of your thesis research topic and your discipline. 

Simply put, you should answer the question: What do the numbers mean?

The best way to approach this would be to do it as if you were creating an infographic . 

Illustrations like icons are a quick and simple way to represent your message. It also reduces the amount of text on your slide, which makes the information much more digestible. 

For a balanced thesis presentation, you should also address any outliers and anomalies.

To quote bestselling author Robin Sharma, “Starting strong is good. Finishing strong is epic.”

That’s exactly what to aim for in your conclusion.

Provide an overview of your thesis topic and remind your audience what you set out to answer with your research. In our example, we’ve used three icons accompanied by a short title and text. 

Following that, reiterate the important points of your research results you want your audience to take away from your thesis defense presentation. 

You can do so by expanding the next slide to have more icons and points, for example.

Don’t forget to address any shortcomings and limitations in your approach and extra points for suggesting possible improvements for future research.

We are going to give you a little tip to make your thesis defense a success. You can combine your defense with good public speaking techniques. Take a look at our article "How to become a great speaker" .

We hope this article has been of great help, have you already seen our templates to make the presentation of your thesis ? Choose the one that best suits your needs, we are sure that one of them will go perfectly with your thesis presentation! 

Good luck from Slidesgo.

Do you find this article useful?

Related tutorials.

Work faster, teach better: boost your skills with Slidesgo Academy

We truly believe that every educator has what it takes to be a fantastic presenter, but we’re also aware of the time it takes to hone these skills. Enter Slidesgo with a great, fast solution: Slidesgo Academy.At this empowering and encouraging platform, we’ve partnered with veteran classroom educators to compile the best tips that will enable you to create engaging, eye-catching, and top-quality presentations for your students and fellow educators. You’ll surprise yourself with how quickly you can craft lessons that engage and excite. Join us as a student, and become the best teacher you can be!

7 tips to create a positive classroom culture

No matter if it's been ages since you last stepped into a classroom or just a long time ago―there’s probably a particular learning experience you often find yourself thinking about. Maybe it was a passionate teacher who kept the whole class engaged, or perhaps a classmate who lent you a hand with a tricky topic. Positive classroom experiences do leave a lasting mark on us, so it makes perfect sense that people leading a classroom aim to create the finest possible learning setting. In this article, we’ll share some tips to help you turn a regular classroom into a positive space.

How to create a word cloud in Google Slides

There are many ways to improve your Google Slides presentation. From choosing the right font to finding the right template, good presentations keep an audience engaged and convey a message in a clear way.Knowing how to visualize data in a slideshow is one of those actions that have a huge impact on the success of a presentation. At the end of the day, plain data fails to motivate decisions as effectively as clear insights do. This is when powerful visual tools like word clouds step in. Let us tell you all about them. 

How to create a word cloud in PowerPoint

In the age of information, showing data has become as important as collecting it. Those who are able to turn big amounts of data into easy-to-understand ideas, are the ones pushing the game forward.At the end of the day, plain data fails to motivate decisions as much as clear insights do. That’s where powerful visual tools such as word clouds step in. We’re here to tell you all about them.

How to Prepare for the Oral Defense of Your Thesis/Dissertation

© Paul T. P. Wong , Ph.D., C.Psych.,  Former Research Director, Graduate Program in Counselling Psychology, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada

Use the following steps when preparing for the oral defense of your thesis/dissertation.

1. Evaluation of oral examination is based on your presentation and your answers to questions from the examining committee.

2. Be well prepared for your presentation—academically, mentally and physically. Try to be well rested and focused before your oral defense.

3. In your preparation, don’t try to memorize all the studies cited in your thesis, but you do need to know the details of the few key studies that form the basis of your investigation.

4. You need to be familiar with larger issues, such as the basic assumptions, theoretical framework, paradigm, cross-cultural perspectives, Christian integration, etc.

5. More importantly, you need to have a deep understanding of the nature of your research problem and the major issues involved.

6. You may bring with you important materials for easy reference in the course of your defense; these may include key articles, computer print-outs of results, etc.

7. Your presentation is evaluated in terms of content and clarity as well as style.

8. Don’t speak too fast and don’t read from your notes.

9. Treat your presentation as a public address because there may be non-psychologists present at your defense. Therefore, don’t use too many jargons and don’t pack it with details. You need to tell people in simple, concise language:

• What you did,
• Why you did it,
• How you did it,
• What you found, and
• What the results mean.

10. Prepare handouts or power-points. Typically, they should include

• An overview or outline of your presentation,
• Introduction (including research question, rationale and hypothesis, if any, and definition of key constructs),
• Method (including design, methodology, sample, instruments or questionnaires, and procedure,
• Results (including tables or figures summarizing your findings), and
• Discussion (including reasons for new or unexpected findings, contributions and limitations, and practical implications).

11. Make sure that you space yourself well. Don’t spend too much time on one section. For example, you should not spend more than 5 minutes on introduction, since you are allowed only 20 minutes for your presentation.

12. Most of the questions are rather general and broad, dealing with substantial methodological, theoretical and application issues. However, some questions focus on specific points regarding sampling, statistical analysis, or some questionable conclusions.

13. Be prepared to clarify or elaborate on your assumptions, theoretical positions, methods, and conclusions. Often, an examiner plays the devil’s advocate to see how well you can think on your feet and defend yourself.

14. Occasionally, an examiner may ask a question which is unfair or cannot be adequately answered. After a few futile attempts, feel free to say that you don’t know the answer. You may even be bold enough to say, “Since none of my answers are acceptable, I would really appreciate it if you could give me some pointers or tell me what would be a correct answer.”

15. Here are some common questions:

• If you were to do it all over again, what changes would you make?
• What specific aspects of your findings can be utilized by counselors or psychologists in their practice?
• What is the most important contribution of your thesis? Can you say it in one or two sentences?
• What are some of the competing hypotheses? Could you think of an alternative interpretation of your findings?

16. Don’t rush to any answers. It is perfectly acceptable to think for a couple of seconds, or ask if you are on the right track. If you are not clear about the question, you are entitled to ask for clarification.

17. Try to be concise and to the point, but at the same time demonstrate that you have a good grasp of the complex issues involved. In other words, do not give superficial answers, but at the same time, do not go all over the map.

18. Put up a good defense without being defensive. Be confident without being cocky. A good defense means that you can provide strong logical arguments as well as empirical support o defend your position or conclusion. However, don’t be defensive when people criticize your study. If they are able to point out some real flaws or weaknesses in your study, accept their criticisms with humility, grace and gratitude.

19. Before the oral defense, talk to your advisor about areas of concerns based on external examiner’s comments. Then, discuss with your advisor how to best address these concerns. (Your advisor cannot tell you the specific questions the examiners will ask, but s/he can direct your attention to issues or areas that require some thinking or additional research.)

20. After the oral defense, meet with your advisor for debriefing and seek advice on how to revise your thesis.

• President’s Annual Report 2023: Founder’s Vision and Last Wishes
• Editorial: A New Science of Suffering, Existential Intelligence, and the New Behavioral Economics of Happiness—Toward a General Theory of Wellbeing
• Meaning-Centered Positive Education (PE 2.0) Based on the New Paradigm of Existential Positive Psychology (EPP)
• What is the meaning of suffering?

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

17 Thesis Defense Questions and How to Answer Them

A thesis defense gives you the chance to show off your thesis work and demonstrate your expertise in your field of study. During this one- to two-hour discussion with the members of your thesis committee, you'll have some control over how you present your research, but your committee will ask you some prodding questions to test your knowledge and preparedness. They will all have read your thesis beforehand, so their questions will relate to your study, topic, methods, data sample, and other aspects.

A good defense requires mastery of the thesis itself, so before you consider the questions you might face,

1. What is your topic, and why did you choose it?

Give a quick summary in just a few sentences on what you've researched. You could certainly go on for hours about your work, but make sure you prepare a way to give a very brief overview of your thesis. Then, give a quick background on your process for choosing this topic.

2. How does your topic contribute to the existing literature? How is it important?

Many researchers identify a need in the field and choose a topic to bridge the gaps that previous literature has failed to cover. For example, previous studies might not have included a certain population, region, or circumstance. Talk about how your thesis enhances the general understanding of the topic to extend the reach beyond what others have found, and then give examples of why the world needs that increased understanding. For instance, a thesis on romaine lettuce crops in desert climates might bring much-needed knowledge to a region that might not have been represented in previous work.

3. What are the key findings of your study?

When reporting your main results, make sure you have a handle on how detailed your committee wants you to be. Give yourself several options by preparing 1) a very general, quick summary of your findings that takes a minute or less, 2) a more detailed rundown of what your study revealed that is 3-5 minutes long, and 3) a 10- to 15-minute synopsis that delves into your results in detail. With each of these responses prepared, you can gauge which one is most appropriate in the moment, based on what your committee asks you and what has already been requested.

4. What type of background research did you do for your study?

Here you'll describe what you did while you were deciding what to study. This usually includes a literary review to determine what previous researchers have already introduced to the field. You also likely had to look into whether your study was going to be possible and what you would need in order to collect the needed data. Did you need info from databases that require permissions or fees?

5. What was your hypothesis, and how did you form it?

Describe the expected results you had for your study and whether your hypothesis came from previous research experience, long-held expectations, or cultural myths.

6. What limitations did you face when writing your text?

It's inevitable — researchers will face roadblocks or limiting factors during their work. This could be a limited population you had access to, like if you had a great method of surveying university students, but you didn't have a way to reach out to other people who weren't attending that school.

7. Why did you choose your particular method for your study?

Different research methods are more fitting to specific studies than others (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative ), and knowing this, you applied a method that would present your findings most effectively. What factors led you to choose your method?

8. Who formed the sample group of your study, and why did you choose this population?

Many factors go into the selection of a participant group. Perhaps you were motivated to survey women over 50 who experience burnout in the workplace. Did you take extra measures to target this population? Or perhaps you found a sample group that responded more readily to your request for participation, and after hitting dead ends for months, convenience is what shaped your study population. Make sure to present your reasoning in an honest but favorable way.

9. What obstacles or limitations did you encounter while working with your sample?

Outline the process of pursuing respondents for your study and the difficulties you faced in collecting enough quality data for your thesis. Perhaps the decisions you made took shape based on the participants you ended up interviewing.

10. Was there something specific you were expecting to find during your analysis?

Expectations are natural when you set out to explore a topic, especially one you've been dancing around throughout your academic career. This question can refer to your hypotheses , but it can also touch on your personal feelings and expectations about this topic. What did you believe you would find when you dove deeper into the subject? Was that what you actually found, or were you surprised by your results?

11. What did you learn from your study?

Your response to this question can include not only the basic findings of your work (if you haven't covered this already) but also some personal surprises you might have found that veered away from your expectations. Sometimes these details are not included in the thesis, so these details can add some spice to your defense.

12. What are the recommendations from your study?

With connection to the reasons you chose the topic, your results can address the problems your work is solving. Give specifics on how policymakers, professionals in the field, etc., can improve their service with the knowledge your thesis provides.

13. If given the chance, what would you do differently?

Your response to this one can include the limitations you encountered or dead ends you hit that wasted time and funding. Try not to dwell too long on the annoyances of your study, and consider an area of curiosity; for example, discuss an area that piqued your interest during your exploration that would have been exciting to pursue but didn't directly benefit your outlined study.

14. How did you relate your study to the existing theories in the literature?

Your paper likely ties your ideas into those of other researchers, so this could be an easy one to answer. Point out how similar your work is to some and how it contrasts other works of research; both contribute greatly to the overall body of research.

15. What is the future scope of this study?

This one is pretty easy, since most theses include recommendations for future research within the text. That means you already have this one covered, and since you read over your thesis before your defense, it's already fresh in your mind.

16. What do you plan to do professionally after you complete your study?

This is a question directed more to you and your future professional plans. This might align with the research you performed, and if so, you can direct your question back to your research, maybe mentioning the personal motivations you have for pursuing study of that subject.

17. Do you have any questions?

Although your thesis defense feels like an interrogation, and you're the one in the spotlight, it provides an ideal opportunity to gather input from your committee, if you want it. Possible questions you could ask are: What were your impressions when reading my thesis? Do you believe I missed any important steps or details when conducting my work? Where do you see this work going in the future?

Bonus tip: What if you get asked a question to which you don't know the answer? You can spend weeks preparing to defend your thesis, but you might still be caught off guard when you don't know exactly what's coming. You can be ready for this situation by preparing a general strategy. It's okay to admit that your thesis doesn't offer the answers to everything – your committee won't reasonably expect it to do so. What you can do to sound (and feel!) confident and knowledgeable is to refer to a work of literature you have encountered in your research and draw on that work to give an answer. For example, you could respond, "My thesis doesn't directly address your question, but my study of Dr. Leifsen's work provided some interesting insights on that subject…." By preparing a way to address curveball questions, you can maintain your cool and create the impression that you truly are an expert in your field.

After you're done answering the questions your committee presents to you, they will either approve your thesis or suggest changes you should make to your paper. Regardless of the outcome, your confidence in addressing the questions presented to you will communicate to your thesis committee members that you know your stuff. Preparation can ease a lot of anxiety surrounding this event, so use these possible questions to make sure you can present your thesis feeling relaxed, prepared, and confident.

Header image by Kasto .

Related Posts

Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) Review: Everything You Need to Know

The Basic Format of an APA Abstract with Examples

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Take your thesis to new heights with our expert editing

• Graduate School

How to Prepare for a Thesis Defense

You’ve spent years on your studies to acquire your advanced degree, and whether a master’s thesis or doctorate, you need to know how to prepare for a thesis defense. Treat this as more of a siege than a defense, and be prepared to outlast any foe, any siege engine, any army at your gates.

You have already built up a great thesis, with instruction from professors, and maybe even the help of a great thesis writing service , and you are finally ready for your defense. What does that phase of your academic career look like?

In this article, we will give you the tools and tips to make it through. We will start with a preparation section, focusing on various aspects of how to study and what to study, then talk about the lead-up to the big day: preparing materials and handling anxiety. We’ll also touch on what to do on the day and how a thesis defense will, or could, go. At the end of it all, you will have a clear idea of how to approach the preparation for, and the defense of, your thesis.

>> Want us to help you get accepted? Schedule a free strategy call here . <<

Article Contents 12 min read

Know your thesis.

We put this first knowing that it is the most important element of your entire presentation. The crux of your defense hinges on this. You must know your thesis, backwards and forwards. There must be nothing about it that you have forgotten. However miniscule the detail, and however insubstantial to your thesis that detail ultimately is, you must nevertheless know it.

When it comes time to question you, after presentation of your work, questions you cannot answer will strike you down. Knowledge is your shield.

Know the Big Picture: What Are You Trying to Prove?

While you will already be intimately familiar with your research, readings, and revisions of your opus, you should still allot yourself time prior to your defense in which to know crucial elements of your thesis front to back. This is your primary concern.

What are you trying to prove? This is your number one concern, and being able to state this clearly, and back up your efforts with sources and arguments, is the main point of your thesis defense.

So, start with the big picture. Know your main points and the crux of your arguments. You have one, main thrust with this thesis, and you have one, primary tentpole holding it up. No doubt you have more evidence than one primary source, but inevitably one will have more weight and potency than the others. Start there and work your way out.

Don’t memorize words to say, but memorize the web of arguments you have woven together to support your work. Your research was about X, and you have Y as a result, and now you share that and defend your assertions.

You can’t memorize the whole thesis – it will be large – but you can memorize a few, important points that support your main argument, and give credibility to your assertions. Again, you aren’t memorizing a speech to give, but you should know some of your more crucial statistics and datapoints so you can reference them easily.

Know Your Secondary Sources

It’s not just enough to know what your own thesis says, but you must be knowledgeable about its foundations. Your thesis is built on sources and materials that you have cited and referenced throughout. These deserve your attention as well.

If you are being questioned and, without a beat, you can cite chapter and verse on the proofs for your claims, this gives your own arguments depth and clarity. A successful thesis will add to the knowledge base of your field, but it must be built on the knowledge that came before. Knowing your secondary sources demonstrates your knowledge, shows how your thesis connects to that knowledge, and solidifies your arguments through the foundational assertions of prior experts.

Are you looking for grad school tips that will help you succeed in your application and once you get in? Watch this:

Sun Tzu Was Right

“Know your enemy,” wrote the philosopher and military commander Sun Tzu, “as you know yourself, and you will have victory in many battles.”

Your thesis makes a claim, adds to the body of knowledge in your field, and does so with evidence, research – not to mention panache – and is given its gravitas by the myriad of sources and proofs that you have to offer. Great, but don’t forget about those who disagree.

In most fields – certainly all the ones worth studying – anybody who makes a claim will have that claim challenged.

This is, perhaps, the most important step to preparing your defense: know why your detractors will say your thesis is wrong. If you can “steel man” – the opposite of “straw man” – their arguments, and phrase counter-arguments to your own statements – as well as anybody who holds those ideas would – then you have already, essentially, anticipated many, if not all, of the questions the examining board will put to you.

With that knowledge, you will also know to prepare defenses, explanations, and counter-arguments to each of these perceived complaints. Make sure that your counter-arguments would satisfy the majority of reasonable, educated persons in your field – if not any potential naysayers themselves.

Of course, having the main points, secondary points, data, references, detractions, and answers to those detractions all at your mind’s immediate beck and call would be wonderful; but, if you can manage to memorize all of that reliably within your head, don’t count on nothing but pure, rote learning to bring up all of this information. We recommend you keep quick reference notes to help you.

When you’re asked a question, having quick access to well-kept notes will serve you well. Notes themselves are nice, but you also need to be able to access them quickly. Any paradigm that works for you will do, but here is a sample schema for you to consider:

From a dollar store or office supply store \u2013 with reference numbers to bookmark key passages. These reference numbers will correspond to your table of contents. "}]">

Again, use any rubric you want, but pick a system and make sure it works for you. How do you know it works? By testing it.

A Baptism of Fire, and How to Avoid It

That term - “baptism of fire” – refers to being trained via a quick shove onto a battlefield. You might also think of mother and father bird shoving their younglings out of the nest, peeping encouragement at them to fly.

Don’t let this happen to you. Check your wings first.

Mock interviews are extremely useful for interview preparation. Arrange a mock thesis defense. Get professionals who know what they are doing to grill you on your thesis. A professional mock panel will simulate the time, let you run through your presentation, and put you through your paces by asking insightful, challenging questions; they might even ask questions you didn’t anticipate – in which case, lucky for you it was caught beforehand.

Or, not so lucky. Lucky is what happens to a soldier in a baptism of fire, but you’re not doing that. You’re preparing, training, and refining your methods to be bulletproof before anybody fires upon you at all.

A mock defense will simulate the real thing as close as possible, likely even giving you a taste of the nerves and letting you learn how to cope with anxiety. Plus, you can test your filing system for quick recall.

Before the Day - What to Get Ready

The most crucial elements to get ready are anything that you will directly need. That is to say that you should have access to your presentation itself, as well as your notes, and anything else that you’ll require for the defense. Everything else is secondary, and while it’s not a great idea to show up without combing your hair, at least you can still mount a defense with bedhead; you can’t defend your thesis without your critical notes.

With that said, definitely comb your hair. Presenting your thesis is about presenting yourself, as well, so put on some professional-casual clothes so you are comfortable and presentable.

Bring along anything else you need to be comfortable in the room, such as a water bottle or pencils and a notepad – anything you might want to help you succeed.

The exception: don’t overload so much that you are carrying multiple bags around with you.

Want to learn how to prepare for thesis defense questions? Check this infographic:

On the Day - Mental and Anxiety Control

The very nature of the activity of thesis defense means that you will be spending your presentation and your day on the defensive. This is, inherently, a stressful position to take, but a strong aggravating factor is the stakes of the event. This is a momentous occasion. You are at the proverbial moment of truth where you will either advance to the next, major phase of your career, or you will be forced to reconcile yourself to returning and revising – another revision and exploration and another defense.

Naturally, it follows that stress management is going to be one of the most important aspects of your day.

Prevention is the Best Cure

Give yourself an on-the-day boost by planning your studying and preparation well in advance. This will enable you to take a break before the actual day. If the day before your thesis defense can be one spent in contemplation, meditation, or relaxation, you’ll have a much better mental state for the defense itself.

Also of utmost importance: sleep. Maintaining a decent sleep schedule can be nigh-impossible, let alone sporadically getting in the actual recommended hours of sleep that your doctor really wants you to get. Nevertheless, make an extra effort to get a lot of rest, ideally within a sleep schedule, so that you are bright-eyed come defense time.

Long-term Stress Management

The rise of app culture is seen by some as the fall of civilization – particularly those spiritual or personal aspects of life. Tech is really just a tool, however, and finding a good meditation app can give you the right tech-based buddy system to keep you in good mental health. Meditation can be a great stress-management technique, and trying out some basic techniques will help you to stay alert, focused, and calm on your big day.

Physical Health IS Mental Health

How are you eating? Do you get out to exercise?

These are things that can easily fall by the wayside while pursuing higher academics. There is a reason that there is a cliched stereotype of undernourished, sleepless academics: it’s hard to absorb, retain, and study knowledge at this demanding level while maintaining a good balance with the more physical aspects of your life. Nonetheless, good physical health is strongly linked with good mental health, and you should pursue both.

Remember Step One...

Preventing panic is often a case of focus being unable to override insecurity. You’ve already taken care of your knowledge base: know your thesis. With that, you can keep insecurity at bay. Now for focus. What is the first thing you have to do when you get in the room? You’ll have some opening remarks, but even before that, you’ll likely want to quickly introduce yourself and welcome and thank your thesis screening panel. Forget everything else. Stop worrying about it, because you just have to do that first thing.

Concentrate on the Next Thing

After that, keeping yourself from getting distracted by insecurity is a question of focusing on whatever you must do next. You’ve made it through your introduction: great. What’s next? Since you’ve composed a careful set of notes, and carefully arranged those notes on your desk, table, or podium – or computing device – you can glance down and look to “point two” to carry you forward. Focus on doing your best job on that point. Once it’s over, focus on point three. Keep on in this way, and you have exorcised the twin demons of distraction and insecurity.

Fix Mistakes with No Fanfare

What if you misspeak? Just go back over it and fix the error quickly. “I’m sorry, I meant to say that 33% of the population favors blue above other colors, not 30 %. ”

Once you’ve fixed the error, move on. Dwelling on it does nothing at best, and exacerbates your problems at worst.

What if your PowerPoint presentation gums up? What if your computer freezes? What if the projector won’t project?

Remember that everybody in the room deals with glitches and tech errors, just like you, and do your best.

Don’t hide it – it's not hidden – but just briefly acknowledge the problem, “It seems the computer has frozen. Pardon me,” and see if you can fix it. If you can’t, rely on your notes to keep going. If you have infographics or charts and data that you wanted to highlight, offer to show those elements to the thesis screening panel, or to describe the data they need.

You’re being judged based on your logic, reasoning, rationales, recommendations, findings, data, and the effectiveness of your thesis. Nobody’s going to dock points from your presentation if there was a power failure.

Plus, if you’ve followed our advice thus far, you have redundant note systems with you, and you’ll be fine.

How to Stay Calm, Generally

Keep your breath under control. This ties in with meditation, to some extent, but controlled breath will keep your heart-rate down and your anxiety levels far more controlled than they would otherwise be. That is not to say that you won’t feel any anxiety, per se, just that – statistically speaking – you are far more likely to have far less anxiety.

Many people like to imagine a humorous image, particularly of their audience, to calm themselves down. This might work for you, but what this technique is getting at is a way to take your mind off of your anxieties and force it to focus on something else.

To do this, you needn’t go to the cliché of imagining anybody in underwear. Rather, just have a calming image or idea in your head that you can focus on. Pick something that makes you calm, or brings out a smile, and something that you can concentrate on to stop any panic moments and take away the snowball effect that happens whenever you dwell on something negative or that makes you anxious.

A Final Tip on Courtesy

Remember to be courteous, gracious, and polite. It really helps if you remember the names of the people on your thesis panel, so write those down if you have to.

What Does a Thesis Defense Look Like?

A thesis defense consists of a short presentation – about twenty or thirty minutes – on your thesis, followed by a discussion. That discussion is the actual defense of your thesis, as the thesis panel will be asking you questions and challenging you on your research, your conclusions, and your ideas.

The questioning period might take another twenty minutes or an hour, or even longer. There is no guaranteed time duration, so be prepared for a lengthy discussion and debate after your presentation.

Standard format would probably include the use of a PowerPoint-type accompaniment to your summation of your thesis. It is recommended that you provide more than just a lecture. If you want your panel to have anything like infographics, charts, or statistics, you need to provide it, either as part of a visual slideshow presentation, handout sheets, or both.

Common Types of Questions and How to Respond

Knowing what kind of thesis defense questions can come your way will be very advantageous for you because it will help you understand the kinds of answers you need to give.

Probing Questions

These feel your argument out a bit, just to test and see if you know your stuff, or if you’ve just memorized a very specific subset of data. These will seem almost unbearably easy if you have studied extensively while researching your thesis. If you haven’t, they will be painfully difficult. If you cannot answer these basic questions, you will seem as though you have crafted a thesis with blinders on, and it is unlikely you will survive further, deeper rounds of questioning.

Data Clarification

Maybe a chart didn’t go deep enough. Maybe somebody is curious if that statistic you gave was per capita or not. These clarification questions will just seek to clear up any misconceptions or blind spots in your presentation. This is why it’s important to know both your material and the secondary sources and citations you have made. If you understand all of this information thoroughly, you’ll be able to go deeper than any one chart and explain everything. This is also why it’s necessary to keep quick reference cards and tables of contents. If you blank on that per capita question, your index card won’t.

Opposing Viewpoint and Supporting Data

These questions will seek to challenge your ideas and stress your thesis by digging deep. They will present opposing views and find out whether or not you have considered alternate points of view. These are the most crucial questions to have excellent answers to, because these are the questions that directly challenge your work and are what you are “defending” your thesis from. We have already warned you to know your “enemy” as you know yourself. We stress this again here: have top-grade answers to cutting questions, or fail in your attempt.

Arm yourself with knowledge of your own thesis and an anticipation of what your detractors might, or do, say, and then practice, practice, practice.

At the end of a long period of vigorous study, get some rest, keep calm, and fire up a meditation app – or go for a walk.

In short: follow our advice, your common sense, and trust to your knowledge base and the research and readings you’ve done over the past years, and you’ll have a solid thesis defense.

Ideally you will dedicate several weeks to thesis preparation. Start about three to five weeks ahead of the defense and put aside some time every day to work on some aspect of your defense.

There isn’t really such a thing as too much prep. You could take too many notes and wind up with a very large, unwieldy reference binder, but even that is mitigated by your “table of contents.”

Err on the side of “too much” rather than “not enough.”

They’re probably just testing your knowledge of the material versus whether or not you just memorized a speech. Treat this as a probing question and answer in reference to your work. If this is an accident, don’t draw attention to it, and don’t get exasperated.

Say it’s outside of your field or area of study, but explain why you didn’t go there. So, if they ask about something peripheral, acknowledge that this isn’t part of what you’ve learned, why you are aware of it, and why you didn’t pursue further research into that area. Above all else, don’t fake knowledge you don’t have.

Numbers may vary, but three to five is fairly typical.

If you need a short break, to use the restroom, for instance, you can ask for one.

Have talking points and a firm knowledge of your facts and ideas, but don’t memorize set speeches. You can come off sounding robotic and impersonal. Worse, if you are asked a question and you find yourself getting lost, you might not remember details of your speech without the “ramp up” into any given part. Better to know the data, rather than the exact words.

In the event that you are not awarded your master or doctorate, you will most likely be given the chance to revise your thesis and try again. The committee will give you feedback, and you will revise accordingly.

Want more free tips? Subscribe to our channels for more free and useful content!

Apple Podcasts

Like our blog? Write for us ! >>

Have a question ask our admissions experts below and we'll answer your questions, get started now.

Talk to one of our admissions experts

Our site uses cookies. By using our website, you agree with our cookie policy .

FREE Training Webinar:

How to make your grad school application stand out, (and avoid the top 5 mistakes that get most rejected).

Time Sensitive. Limited Spots Available:

We guarantee you'll get into grad school or you don't pay.

Swipe up to see a great offer!

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Preparing for your dissertation defense, published by steve tippins on april 4, 2019 april 4, 2019.

Last Updated on: 30th August 2022, 04:43 am

Preparing for your dissertation defense is one of the most important things you’ll do as a doctoral candidate. Now that you’ve completed your dissertation, it’s up to you to present the results to your committee.

However, the results aren’t just about your study. Your committee wants to see what you learned through the process and whether you are ready to take on the responsibility of being a scholar.

What is a Dissertation Defense?

When you finish your dissertation and your committee has said you are ready to move forward, there is a formal meeting–your dissertation defense–where you have the opportunity to explain what you did and what you found.

Your committee then has the opportunity to ask questions related to your work, the implications of what you found, and your future. It is a chance for you to stand before your peers and be welcomed into the academy. Defending your dissertation is one of the great rites of passage into the world of academia.

How to Prepare for Your Dissertation Defense

Rather than write a quick list of dissertation defense tips, I thought I’d create a comprehensive guide to defending your dissertation. After chairing and sitting on countless dissertation committees, these are the steps I recommend you take.

Cultivate The Right Attitude

Perhaps the most important thing to have as you prepare to defend your dissertation is a revised view of your academic self. You’ve spent years gaining knowledge on your chosen subject, and now is your time to shine. While it’s natural to be nervous — after all, you’re jumping the highest hurdle in academia — keep in mind that this is your moment to shine and that you are now an expert on the topic.

One way to look at the dissertation defense is as a rite of passage. You are being tested, and just as with any rite of passage, the more rigorous the test, the prouder you will be of making it through.

During the process of your defense, keep this in mind: your committee tests you not only to ensure your worthiness but also to enable you to see just how much you know; to step into your new role as “expert.”

Prepare For Your Committee’s Questions

With this attitude in mind, you will want to prepare to demonstrate your expertise. That means anticipating questions the committee may have about your research.

If your dissertation asserts the likelihood of a recession in the presence of particular economic indicators, your committee will want to know what socio-political conditions are linked to these indicators. If you found that high achieving students are more likely to have had parents who volunteered in their schools, your committee members will likely ask you to speculate about how to increase parent involvement in schools.

In other words, you’ll need to be able to participate in discourse beyond your results — questions that speak to the relevance and implications of your research.

This kind of preparation goes beyond creating a PowerPoint of your findings (though that is necessary too); it’s part of your stepping into your expert role.

One thing I always tell my students is “Be able to explain your topic to your grandparents,” because to elucidate someone who knows nothing about the topic (no offense to the grandparents!) you must know it inside and out.

Of course, you’ll also want to know your topic well enough to discuss the topic with the top researchers in the field, but at this stage, you’ll have read enough of their work that you’ll feel you know them personally. It’s usually more difficult for academics to simplify than to complicate.

To ready yourself for potential questions, give your abstract to a few friends outside your academic program and have them ask you questions about your study. The advantage is their “outsider” perspective; you’ll have fun answering their questions and will likely have to make a few new neuronal connections to do so. Practicing like this will also help you relax during the actual defense.

Here are some questions you may be asked during your dissertation defense :

• “What are the strengths and weaknesses of your study?”
• “What was the most surprising thing you found?”
• “What will you do next with your results?”
• “If you could do this over, what would you do differently?”

Organize Your Presentation

Keep in mind that your presentation to your committee can double as your presentation to the faculty at any university to which you apply; your preparation will serve a dual purpose. You’ll need, therefore:

• a concise overview of the literature in which your study is grounded,
• a clear description of your study’s purpose, methodology, and findings,
• and a discussion of the implications of these findings.

Naturally, you will need to consult your department’s and college’s specific requirements, but every dissertation committee (and faculty search committee) will want to fully understand these basic elements of your work.

I have provided a list of questions to help prepare your dissertation defense. If you have time restrictions I would put more emphasis upon your results and the implications of your work. Think of organizing your slides according to these questions:

1. Why did I choose to study this? Don’t be afraid to reveal something personal about your motivation, as long as you can do so with poise and dignity. Your committee members will appreciate this humanizing element but keep it brief!

2. What have other people interested in this topic found? If your study is the next clue in the hunt for answers about this topic, what were the clues that led you here? What paths have past researchers gone down — both fruitful and not? What solid theoretical foundation stands under your study?

This portion of your presentation is the easiest to overdo. You will likely need to edit it again and again to ensure it is both concise and comprehensive. Stick to the major themes in your presentation but be prepared to answer questions about less dominant streams of research.

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

3. How did my research question evolve? Answering this question links your research to what has already been established, placing your study in the stream of knowledge. Keep it brief but don’t skip this step, as it is key to showing you as an academic, rather than a student.

4. How did I organize my study? This is a description of the basics of your study and the “whys” of these choices. You can expand a bit here, as the decisions you made at this stage demonstrate your ability to think critically about approaching a research question. Why did you choose your particular methodology? What was the benefit of this design over another option you might have chosen?

5. What did I find? You can begin this section with what you expected to find and why, then explain what you actually found. Keep this section simple and factual.

6. What do the findings mean in relation to the question? Whether or not your findings matched your expectations, they tell you and your colleagues something important about the topic. What is it? Can we speculate that this is a promising area of research, or is this a path we might think of as a dead end? What, exactly, does this study tell us?

7. What’s next for me and for the research? You’ll want to give your committee (and any faculty search committee) a preview of your prospective academic career. What new questions has your study sparked for you? What would you hope other researchers would look at next? How do you intend to fit into the academic conversation on this topic?

Depending on your committee and requirements, you may want to include potential grants you will consider applying for to fund your next study. (This inclusion becomes more important when applying for academic positions.)

Prepare Yourself Mentally

Going back to attitude, remind yourself that a dissertation defense is your opportunity to step into your new role. This is your domain now. Breathe deeply and feel the pride that comes with a job well done. Know that you belong in this realm and the dissertation defense is your chance to prove it. Be humble, too; after all, you stand on the shoulders of giants.

Getting enough rest the night before, drinking water and bringing some with you to drink when your mouth gets dry, and being wise about what you consume prior to the defense (maybe go easy on the carbs and caffeine) are all obvious but frequently overlooked pointers. Your committee members want to know you can handle the pressure and take care of yourself under duress .

You might want to give yourself a few minutes of silence and rest before heading in to defend. Take those moments to recognize whatever you’re feeling, then humbly begin your academic career by presenting your most important work to date. And then get ready to roll up your sleeves for the next one. Congratulations, Doctor!

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

What makes a good research question.

Creating a good research question is vital to successfully completing your dissertation. Here are some tips that will help you formulate a good research question.  What Makes a Good Research Question? These are the three Read more…

Dissertation Structure

When it comes to writing a dissertation, one of the most fraught questions asked by graduate students is about dissertation structure. A dissertation is the lengthiest writing project that many graduate students ever undertake, and Read more…

Choosing a Dissertation Chair

Choosing your dissertation chair is one of the most important decisions that you’ll make in graduate school. Your dissertation chair will in many ways shape your experience as you undergo the most rigorous intellectual challenge Read more…

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Rushmer RK, Cheetham M, Cox L, et al. Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Aug. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.33.)

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach.

Chapter 8 discussion and concluding remarks.

This chapter is in three parts. The first part identifies the limitations of the study. The second section identifies the contribution made by this study and gives a high-level read across the findings in order to synthesise the various data streams to answer the overarching theoretical question: what works where, for whom, and under what conditions. 171 Included in this section are two mid-range theories as the study’s unique contribution to knowledge. The final section outlines recommendations for practice, researchers and educators, and research funders, and makes suggestions for further research. Care needs to be taken when interpreting the findings, as this is a small study. We start with an explanation of the quantitative analysis conducted as part of this project, the challenges it faced and the format it finally took, along with other limitations of the study.

• Limitations of the study

Quantitative analysis: an aspiration too far?

We anticipated that data would be available to examine the overall performance of the case study site organisations (their quality), and that these data would be readily accessible. In fact, this was not the case.

Extensive efforts were made to identify routine data sources that would allow us to address the quantitative component of the study. The quantitative measures of performance would have allowed us to see if there was any reason for considering our sites to be typical (or outliers) in what they were able to achieve, and therefore contextualise the qualitative data (i.e. we would know the standing of the organisations we were working with). Appendices 9 and 10 lay out in some detail the approaches we tried.

However, currently, there is a challenge when drawing out changes in performance over time because high-level performance indicators for England have changed for both the NHS and LAs over the past 5 years, including the organisations that were responsible for their performance assessment. To explain: within England the quality indicators over the three performance frameworks (the NHS outcomes framework, the Public Health framework and the adult social care framework) have not been consistent over time, and it is currently unclear which indicators are relevant to the different commissioning organisations (HWBs, CCGs, LAs, etc.). There are benchmarks for the NHS outcomes frameworks where NHS organisations can compare themselves with other organisations, but access to these is restricted to NHS employees (www.nhscomparators.nhs). This makes it hard for external researchers to obtain any objective (quantitative) measures of quality.

Statutory performance indicators are available for all LA councils, but they are not collated in any one area and nor are they reported consistently by councils. This reporting issue had two main implications for this project. First, it is not straightforward to identify where they are reported. Second, and importantly, measurement between councils and possibly within councils is not standardised. This means that comparative data would be misleading (possibly explaining why collated information is not reported). Taken together, this suggests that little or no national/local performance measures are readily available that would allow meaningful comparison between locations, or indeed over time, to establish good measures of quality.

It may be possible to address these issues (i.e. identify, access, collect, clean and interrogate these data), but this would probably necessitate new primary data collection and be a substantive research project in its own right, which was beyond the scope of this project. Overall, our attempted economic analysis highlights some very real quantitative information gaps.

Where it was possible, descriptive quantitative data have been added to the case study chapters to contextualise the issues in the case study locations and to support the findings. However, in Rosetown, routine data linking alcohol consumption and pregnancy are based on subject categories (e.g. drinks ‘occasionally’), are self-reported or are not recorded at all (making a FOI request of little use). In Thistletown, the number of licences granted was recorded (on a case-by-case basis) but not collated. Requests made to ask for these data to be extracted were declined, as the one practitioner involved had insufficient time to search all records. As part of our negotiated entry to Thistletown, we were required to agree not to issue a FOI request on the LA with regard to its licensing data (again for capacity reasons). Appendices 9 and 10 report on the quantitative scoping work we undertook and the sources consulted, and gives an overall, descriptive quantitative account of the substantive topics in the case study sites (licensing and alcohol use in pregnancy). We choose not to present some of the local and national data, as we balance these against the need to preserve the anonymity of the case sites. Most of the routine data compare the ‘core cities’ within the UK and comparative prevalence and trends over time. It is easy to identify locations from these data.

The challenges of comparative case study design

In-depth case studies permit deep examination of practice in situ and the interplay between multiple factors in that context often in live time to provide a realism (‘messiness’) and richness that controlled designs often do not have. The advantage is that a plethora of data are revealed that could not have been exposed in other ways. We sampled our case study sites according to issues considered to be pivotal in shaping the use of evidence and organisational arrangements (commissioning vs. joint planning) to compare how the issues played out in the different contexts.

‘Preventing alcohol-related harms’ was selected as the overarching cohering topic area, but, by allowing each site to select their own topic area (of most pressing concern, and fitting in with their own strategic objectives), through working in cocreation a gap opened between the two sites. When viewed traditionally, the direct unit of comparison appears lost; in our findings it is impossible to say if any differences between the two sites were due to the organisational arrangements (commissioning vs. joint planning) or the topic (maternal alcohol consumption vs. alcohol licensing). However, in a realist design this direct (controlled) comparison between the sites is of less importance. The prime focus is the interaction between what works, why and under what conditions in looking at the use of evidence. We built an increasing understanding by looking at how evidence is used and what works in one site (and process) and then built on or refuted this understanding by looking at what works across the second site. It was this iterative comparison of the two settings that illuminated factors in the process of using evidence and the opportunities and constraints involved. Our understanding and contribution lies in illuminating these comparisons rather than attempting to pin down the definitive causal pathways determining evidence use.

There were ongoing challenges in the English context. The key stakeholders with whom we were working changed in the middle of the project as original members changed role (displaced). Often stakeholders would not be sure if they were part of the process, as roles were changing and some practitioners were holding portfolios temporarily (caretaking) until the new structures (and roles) were established. Many staff were uncertain regarding their ongoing job security. When the commissioning process in Rosetown stalled (mid-way), we were left in a hiatus until there was movement (behind the scenes, which we did not see). At this point, following the live process, as was our intention, was thwarted, and our data gathering became historical in nature.

Limited wider stakeholder evaluation

In following this design, we acknowledge that it is unlikely that all the findings will apply everywhere (truly generalisable); however, the opposite is also true. It is also unlikely that none of the findings will apply elsewhere. Some will hold important and transferable messages for evidence use in other places (transferability). The key is to identify which findings are more context dependent (apply only locally) and which may be considered more context free (and therefore apply more widely).

Several steps were taken to verify and validate our case study findings, both within the case sites and to explore transferability to other contexts. In each case study site we held a final local workshop to discuss findings, check our interpretation and invite comments and interpretation. This ‘checked’ our findings with other local stakeholders, including other commissioners and senior public health decisions-makers. These stakeholders were forthright in their comments and they helped us to understand the history of, reasons for and significance of the findings. We did not proceed to the national workshop until the local sites were happy that our findings reflected how they understood the process. Through this process, the accuracy of the case study findings was validated by a wider local audience.

Checking the results for transferable messages across contexts was more challenging. These efforts were not entirely successful. Table 9 speaks to our efforts to invite stakeholders to the national workshop and issue the two-stage Delphi process. Despite sending out approximately 1000 questionnaires and telephoning all public health departments/sections in all English LAs and all Licensing Board convenors in Scotland to invite them, and all professional bodies and voluntary and community sector organisations associated with the topic areas, only 10 participants attended the ‘national’ workshop.

It is difficult to say why this was the case. Respondents gave different reasons for non-attendance: they were too busy to leave their desks (dealing with transitionary arrangements); there was no money for training and development events; they were carrying additional portfolios of displaced staff; or they were uncertain about how ‘taking time out from the day job’ would be perceived at a time of job insecurity, etc. Poor attendance may also be due to research overload or perhaps lack of interest in the topic areas (although this did not seem to be the case).

However, the Delphi process was severely limited by this low attendance rate. Only 34 first-stage replies (before the workshop) and 10 second-stage votes (at the national workshop) were received. In an (less than ideal) attempt to gather additional data on the applicability of the results to other contexts, the BARS questionnaire was issued again more widely, giving the 73 replies analysed (albeit cautiously) in Chapter 6 . Although every effort was made to approach all those directly interested in alcohol-related harms and commissioning interventions, and so on (as a census sweep), the small number of replies does not constitute a representative sample. Of the responses received approximately one-third of these were from the north-east of England. The results and analysis presented should be viewed with caution.

Researching in a changing context: meeting the study’s objectives

In this section we revisit the study’s original objectives in order to consider whether or not these were met (and to what extent), and the steps taken to ameliorate any ‘drift’. We make reference to where, in the report, these issues are explored in more depth, and the impact on the study is discussed. We consider the objectives in turn and include what we learn from these efforts.

Objective 1: to engage research participants in the research process (cocreation of knowledge) (meets research questions 1, 2 and 3)

Chapter 2 outlined our plan for cocreation (see Researching in new ways: participatory approaches and the promise of cocreation ) and Chapter 3 described the plan for making this happen (see Research engagement process , Operationalising the project and A study designed to cocreate knowledge ), while Chapter 7 reflected on what actually happened in detail. The reality did not match the promise or the plan. Despite agreeing with our case sites in advance the core conditions that were needed in order for us to be able to select them as a case site (that they pick the topic and set-up a small local group that would work with us to jointly interpret the findings), ultimately these promises were not met. Sometimes participants prioritised other activities and meetings were cancelled or poorly attended (or attended by deputies). This issue almost exclusively related to Rosetown, where the English context was one of major reform, displaced staff and disruption to ‘business as normal’ as transition was managed. There is no controlling this. In both sites, regardless of discussions and written material, the notion of cocreation remained somewhat unclear. It is likely that efforts to work in cocreation need to be reiterated and negotiated at each stage of the research process. Later, we offer recommendations for further research on cocreation.

Objective 2: to track the commissioning process (and joint planning) in public health for research utilisation (meets research questions 1 and 3)

In Thistletown, we were able to engage all stakeholders in the licensing process and to follow the live action as planned. In Rosetown, the process we were following stalled (as the market research company were unable to recruit participants to the local data collection that they were commissioned to undertake). In addition, in Rosetown we were unable to engage the major providers of services fully in the research process (non-attendance at joint interpretation meetings).

In both sites there were places we did not get to see (the Licensing Board in Thistletown and the informal contacts between commissioners and providers in Rosetown), meaning that the full process was not observed. Both of these points appear to suggest that we failed to meet our objectives, and this is one way of understanding what happened; however, an alternative is possible, that these are simply findings. The first identifies a deeper concern between Rosetown commissioners and providers and the second indentifies that there are hidden places in commissioning and joint planning processes. These points are examined more closely later in this chapter and their implications are explored. At the very least, it is fair to say that we did not get to see the full commissioning process in Rosetown and so care must be taken in considering our findings; later we recommend further research in this area (see Recommendations for practice and future research ).

Objective 3: to identify research management roles (and the opportunities and challenges posed by this role) (meets research questions 1 and 3)

We interviewed 32 ‘research managers’ across the two sites, carried out six observations and conducted two focus groups ( n  = 5 and n  = 6); Chapter 3 identifies the various roles they held (data analysts, library services, intelligence managers, etc.). The findings from these interviews are incorporated into Chapters 4 and 5 (Thistletown and Rosetown findings). The overall conclusion is that these roles do exist and they represent the organisations’ efforts to identify, collate and mobilise evidence into planning and commissioning processes, but that the role incumbents felt that their skills and capacity (and opportunities to enter evidence) were largely underused. Later, we offer recommendations on how to use the skills of research managers more fully (see Recommendations for practice and future research ).

Objective 4: to explore individual and organisational learning around research utilisation (embedding and sustaining research utilisation) (meets research questions 1, 2 and 3)

We were able to investigate this. In both organisations, the first formal organisational efforts to pull in evidence occurred at the time when strategic documents were refreshed, to identify organisational priorities and to provide an evidence-informed backdrop to subsequent activity. The second organisational response to ensuring evidence use was the provision of the ‘knowledge manager’ roles (as above). However, the use of the knowledge manager’s skills, and the decision to pull in evidence beyond that included in strategic documents, came down to the individual commissioner’s or planner’s time, interest and knowledge. Later in this chapter we offer recommendations for practice and future research in this area.

Objective 5: to explore any link between research utilisation and organisational performance (the impact) (meets research questions 1 and 3)

We were not able to meet this objective, as discussed more fully in Quantitative analysis: an aspiration too far? Quantitative data are included in the case study findings chapters (see Chapters 4 and 5 ) to help the reader to understand the public health issue in the case study sites, the extent of the problem, the trends over time and how the site compares with other parts of the UK (without identifying the site). We identify some very real gaps in routine data and later we offer recommendations in this area (see Quantitative analysis: an aspiration too far? ).

Objective 6: to explore and discuss transferability of the findings (meets research questions 1, 2 and 3)

Here, again, our efforts were only partly successful. We were able to feed back and validate emerging findings with our case participants. We were also able to share these findings and explore their applicability more widely in the case studies in two local workshops ( n  = 23 and n  = 15). However, the response rate to the Delphi questionnaire and the attendance at the national workshop (as detailed above) were poor, giving us only a limited understanding of how these issues may play out elsewhere. We have discussed these issues above.

It may be obvious to state (but we will) that in turbulent times, when organisations, processes, roles and personnel are changing, planning and conducting empirical research is challenging. The research team has little control over the activity and can only attempt to work with it and around it. Perhaps, in some ways, this research gives examples of the level of disruption experienced by practice colleagues (at least in Rosetown) during this period (and is a testament to them). The following section will consider the contribution of this study.

• The contribution of the study

Reaffirming earlier findings

This study provides two detailed empirical accounts of evidence use in the processes of public health commissioning and planning, which have been advocated as a gap in the evidence base. 61 , 91 In doing this, it replicates findings from earlier studies that have looked at research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation and reiterates that the process is heavily dependent on several factors. The nature of the evidence itself is patchy; it is often seen as dull, difficult to understand, not timely and historical, not a good fit in local contexts and not always fit for purpose, and therefore it is contested. The uptake of evidence is more likely if it is presented by a trusted and credible source in an active format, if it is relevant to the context and tasks at hand, if key messages are teased out, and if the significance of the evidence is negotiated across stakeholders in trusting and ongoing relationships. In addition, research evidence is only one form of evidence and information used in making public health decisions, and it competes with other local pressures and vested interests; tacit knowledge is always embedded in decision-making, which is seen as an art form rather than a science. 90 Below, we move on to the contribution of this study. It will become clear that there are more commonalities across the sites than there are differences.

Public health and the dominant programme theory

We start the realist analysis with two key observations:

• Both sites were carrying out activity in line with the EU and with the HICs laid down in national guidelines (see Chapter 2 ) for reducing alcohol-related harms and, therefore, at the highest level, both sites were carrying out evidence-informed commissioning and joint planning .
• Both case study sites collected local evidence for themselves. In Rosetown this may be explained by the inconsistencies in national evidence relating to the effects of maternal alcohol consumption in pregnancy. However, in Thistletown, local data and evidence was similarly collected, despite a well-established and robust evidence base. We conclude that the collection of local evidence serves a purpose beyond merely filling in the gaps in the evidence-base.

We return to both of these pivotal observations in what follows in this chapter. We identify and explore the predominant programme theory and the context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) combinations at play in the use of research evidence and other types of evidence in the commissioning and joint planning to reduce alcohol-related harms in the case study sites. We consider structure and individual agency as they facilitate the use of evidence, and what follows takes into account the extent to which the findings resonate across different contexts as illustrated by the national seminar and the BARS questionnaire. To do this, the argument moves away from a simple description of CMO combinations, in order to cope with the complexity of the process. As explained below, what is identified as the best course of action is not clear until who, where, with what resources, when, how, and for what purpose also align. The use of different types of knowledge and information moves iteratively, rising to and falling from prominence, and is not static in the way that a ‘frozen’ CMO combination might suggest. Instead, we give a high-level read-across and present two mid-range theories to account for the findings. One of the unexpected debates our findings open is: ‘what is Public Health?’ We begin by referring to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of Public Health to initially close off this complexity, but end the chapter with this issue reopened.

The WHO states that public health has three main functions: the 223

. . . assessment and monitoring of the health of communities and populations at risk to identify health problems and priorities.

. . . formulation of public policies designed to solve identified local and national health problems and priorities.

. . . assure that all [. . .] have access to appropriate and cost-effective care, including health promotion and disease prevention services.

In other words, Public Health has a defined (if broad) remit and three identified activities through which this remit is to be met.

The programme theory that underpinned and shaped the activity at play in this project (research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation) can be simply expressed as: Research evidence will enable Public Health functions to be met more easily (i.e. the three bullet points above). We chose to focus on the dominant programme theory (largely the one at work in Western societies that value and privilege scientific evidence). In a complex study this focus was helpful to hone the data collection (interviews and observations). Within our focus on commissioning and joint planning, our data address primarily the second two bullet points (the design of Public Health policies and the provision of appropriate Public Health services and interventions).

What works (for whom)

It is clear throughout the project that what counts as evidence (proof) or ‘valid knowledge’ 53 varies considerably across stakeholder groups. The internal validity of research evidence, 52 , 53 that is the robust and rigorous process through which the evidence is established, gives that evidence a privileged (factual and generalisable) status for academics (and practitioners steeped in evidence-based traditions). However, decision-makers often look to the external validity of different types of evidence. When other forms of data and information appear to tell them more about their world and reflect it more accurately (external validity) than research, evidence (regardless of the precision with which it is produced) is relegated in favour of more salient representations of their immediate world. Participants at each site often referred to things being ‘different here’ or ‘special’, meaning that the conditions under which the research evidence might hold true did not, in fact, apply, rendering its message less applicable.

‘What works’ is about not only the nature of the evidence, but also its mobilisation. How evidence is introduced and by whom and the trust, credibility and likeability of the messenger all impact on the likely uptake of that evidence into the decision-making process. Participants regularly reported using local opinion leaders to introduce material that they themselves would not be able to champion. Messages had to be ‘short and snappy’, relate to the day job, and have clear local implications, with the preferred model (for maximum impact) being face to face (verbal and visual) as opposed to written, because of the immediacy of the former’s impact.

A mid-range theory: saliency and immediacy

Pawson and Tilley 171 talk of the ‘mechanisms’ that, within a context, are the sociocultural active ingredients that shape the outcomes that are observed. In both of our sites the sociocultural mechanisms that encouraged the use of evidence (of all kinds) were twofold. One mechanism was the perception of local fit and relevancy to the situation at hand: saliency . The other was the immediacy of the evidence. To use slang, taken together both mechanisms make the message in the evidence ‘up close and real’ and about ‘here-and-now’. Below, these ideas are developed further as the core mechanisms that mediate to encourage (or discourage) the use of evidence. Several factors inter-relate to influence how useful (and usable) any information will be seen to be. We can explain this through a mid-range theory based on these two linked mechanisms: saliency and immediacy. Evidence that is created here-and-now, as opposed to there-and-then, is considered more salient. Evidence that is presented face to face, perhaps visually, and with active interpretation to pull out the key messages has greater immediacy than evidence that is passively presented in written documents. The closer the evidence to the setting of its use (geographically and temporally: context), and the more actively that evidence is introduced (explained, visualised, debated: mechanism) the more likely it is that it will be used (outcome). Researchers cannot assume that the evidence ‘speaks for itself’, or that decision-makers will share their views that the evidence is generalisable and will work anywhere. Figure 11 conceptualises this relationship. The direction of the arrow (overlaid) indicates the increasing likeliness that evidence will be used.

The importance of saliency and immediacy as the sociocultural mechanisms in achieving research utilisation.

Ironically, this suggests that what counts as useful evidence and valid knowledge is intrinsically tied to where it is used and by whom . The data move us away from a simple linear view of research utilisation (i.e. it is more complex than first deciding what to do, and then when, etc.). Clearly, building relationships is important, too, but we consider that to fully understand the use of research evidence, a complex systems view is needed. We develop this argument below. While we continue to make distinctions between what, whom and where, as a heuristic device in order to discuss the findings, we acknowledge that ultimately they may prove to be artificial, as it may be more useful to look at the totality of the decision as it is made and not at the component parts.

Where: evidence entry points

To use research evidence, it has first to be available to be used. Our findings suggest that there are provisions within organisational arrangements in both case study sites to pull in, use and embed research evidence to inform high-level decision-making for both commissioning and joint planning. However, these official evidence entry points are few . The most obvious evidence entry point is when research evidence is both pushed and pulled into each cycle at set times to renew strategic documents (e.g. Joint Strategic Needs Assessments; policy, strategy and planning documents). Most commonly, the research evidence is used to detail the nature and scale of the problem : what it is, where it occurs, and possibly how it is changing over time. This embedded evidence is then used to set organisational priorities. In this important way, all activity that flows from these priorities is evidence-informed. However, research evidence used through this evidence entry point is used rather like floodlights to illuminate a football pitch, showing where to play and take action, but not directly shaping any game that is played there or how it is to be played.

There are implications in relying on these high-level evidence entry points alone. This embedded evidence may raise understanding and awareness of the problem, but not necessarily provide guidance on what to do about it; for example, local actionable messages. The nature of these documents is that they list the priorities in overarching, generic terms (e.g. ‘alcohol’). The precise shape, direction and extent of any activities taken to address these high-level priorities are decisions that are taken downstream in the organisation (i.e. what should be done to meet the priorities). At this ‘lower’ level, when actual commissioning or planning decisions are taken, the use of evidence is largely a person-dependent system , with evidence mainly being mobilised through the efforts of individuals rather than structures or processes, and is, therefore, necessarily patchy and variable.

Some of the formal evidence entry points that did exist were not always used (e.g. the Licensing Forum pushing evidence to and requesting information from the Licensing Board in Thistletown). From this example, the findings suggest that a combination of formal structures is needed (the points where evidence enters), backed up by a requirement to use them and a cultural acceptance that this is the ‘done thing’.

Organisational responses to facilitating evidence use (research and public health data and intelligence) establish various roles (knowledge management, knowledge officers, information scientists, data analysts, etc.) whose remit is, variously, to identify, gather, collate and push research evidence into the cycles. However, these potential evidence entry points are not necessarily used. Whether or not the data analysts’ skills (or those of information scientist, etc.) are drawn on depends on the individual commissioner’s capacity to know that there may be evidence and how to access it, know what it means when they find it, interpret how to apply it locally and have the time to take these actions in collaboration with stakeholders. At these crucial times there are no formal organisational or structural requirements to bring research evidence to the table. In this way the evidence entry points we observed were used to formally pull in research evidence to identify need, but they were used far less so later on in the process as activities to address that need were decided on. Flow of evidence (sometimes cascade of evidence) was not well developed and nor was it seen as an expectation of the process; rather, it was left to the discretion, capacity and capability of commissioners/planners.

What works: asking different questions of the data

One way to understand why it is not seen as crucial to identify the evidence base at the point where decisions on services and interventions are made is that there are few actionable messages to be found there (i.e. it is of little use given the task at hand – ‘not fit for purpose’). 53 When researchers ask ‘what works’ and practitioners ask ‘what will work’, deceptively they appear to be asking the same question of the data. This is not the case. The same words are used but a different question is being asked. Anecdotally, when listening to accounts of the effectiveness of Public Health interventions emerging from research evidence, practice colleagues often say ‘oh that would never work here . . .’ If taken at face value, this seems to run counter to the understanding of research evidence and the research process. Efficacy means that significant health improvements have been measured following an intervention introduced under controlled conditions (across a comparator) to establish proof of concept – that the intervention can improve health outcomes. However, that is not to say that in any one specific context it will. Scientifically, it is perhaps more accurate to claim that under the conditions under which the effect was observed the outcomes (health gains) followed, but not that those conditions (context, backdrop, and fidelity of the interventions) can and will be replicable elsewhere. Field trials are not always available – and even then ‘fields’ differ. It seems to be this difference to which practice colleagues refer.

The case study sites reported ‘It’s different here . . .’, ‘We are special . . .’ and ‘. . . the problems are different . . .’ when asked about the ‘fit’ of national evidence to the local context, meaning that the prevailing backdrop (context) may make it impossible to reproduce the intervention, as it was designed, in order to replicate the health gains. When practice colleagues say ‘that would never work here’, they are not challenging the efficacy (that under the prescribed conditions it will work) but asserting that they could not get it to work – that it would not be implementable locally in that way. The precise conditions under which health gains will follow cannot be replicated. ‘What works’ (although the same words) means different things to Public Health researchers and practitioners.

To understand this dilemma, we may understand the practitioners’ focus as ‘what might work here and now – what can I get to work – how do I do that?’ It is, typically, not that the practitioner is necessarily unaware of the research evidence findings, but more that following the findings is not a recipe. To use an analogy, in practice they may blend ingredients from multiple Public Health recipes according to cooking techniques (tacit and professional knowledge) developed over years, to find a blend that will work in their kitchen to meet their customer’s needs – a kind of local ‘Public Health plat-du-jour’. This departure from the pure science of public health is not necessarily pathological, but fiercely pragmatic. In order to secure what interventions are possible (those that are feasible, acceptable) our practitioners (in the workshops) say that it is better to perhaps, suboptimally, ‘Chip away’ and change things over the longer term rather than fail with unimplementable approaches. Again, taking a complex system view helps us to explain this. 221 Having evidence that is ‘. . . good enough’, that moves things generally in ‘the right direction’ and that is achievable for now, even if is not perfect or likely to last forever, is the best way to deal with wicked issues. 72 – 74

The interlinked nature of public health issues

Again, we see that what works, for whom, where and under what conditions are parts of the same question; they are not separate, distinct factors. Instead of considering these as sequential considerations when making a decision for commissioning or planning (first decide what, then where, then how, etc.), we suggest that the answer to one part of the question depends on the answer to the others. Public Health issues are not single-stranded and solutions cannot be discrete or compartmentalised. No one part of the question is answered until they all are. The solution is not suddenly apparent, but emerges over time and through discussion as a resultant whole. This slowed-down evolution of solutions opens decisions to influence at different parts of the process by different groups; this allows any final solution to reflect many factors and concerns. The final decision is held in abeyance until the decision-in-progress hits on a solution-in-practice – typical of wicked problems and complex systems, where solutions are only ever partial and temporary.

Under what conditions: context

We move on to consider what these situational factors are that shape ‘what works in situ’. The fieldwork suggests that multiple types of evidence (e.g. research findings, local statistics and local opinions, performance and health data) and information from what has been tried before and how that went (organisational memory) may be drawn in to inform commissioning and planning decisions and weighed against other considerations. These other concerns are largely contextual factors that need to line up to allow any approach to proceed. There needs to be a consideration of ‘local fit’ (i.e. saliency) with regard to the acceptability and feasibility of the approach: how things can be accomplished (with what partners, through what champions and stakeholders and across what managerial mechanism – commissioning or joint planning). Then, all of this is considered against a backdrop of wider forces (political influences, macroeconomic concerns and performance measures). Figure 12 illustrates some of this mix, as identified in our fieldwork.

The dilemmas of using Public Health evidence in situ.

This is a simple and simplistic representation and almost certainly not exhaustive. We use it here to reinforce:

• that research evidence is only one ‘part of the jigsaw’ 69
• that at the centre of the process is a human being subject to human strengths and foibles (peer pressure, forgetfulness, stress, resilience, and capacity to build alliances) and, therefore, commissioning and joint planning are ultimately social activities
• that if these are the questions and dilemmas that commissioners and joint planners face, they are unlikely to all be answered by traditional Public Health research methods
• that ‘outcomes’ of commissioning decisions do not follow research findings in any straightforward way.

The curious cases of the collection of local data

Figures 10 and 11 also help us to understand why, regardless of whether or not there are plentiful national data and a well-established evidence base (low saliency and low immediacy), both sites conduct their own local research (high saliency and high immediacy) to provide evidence that they both trust and can use (CMO combination that encourages evidence use). A further explanation is that local commissioners and planners are trying to answer the questions that national evidence does not (and perhaps cannot): what actions to take and how to achieve that change in their setting. However, other factors also seem to be at play. In Rosetown, lack of consistency in national guidelines regarding what public health messages to give to local women regarding drinking in pregnancy made it difficult to identify what interventions to commission. Logically, this prompted the commissioning of Insight work (the process case study we followed) to determine local acceptability and feasibility of any approach that would be proposed. This gives a direct ‘test’ (here and now) of the future likely success of any intervention and allows the public to help shape that approach. However, there is a hidden conundrum: the national evidence base already contains messages about what is typically acceptable to women and to midwives in delivering these messages (from various public health topics: smoking in pregnancy, drugs screening, weight management, etc.), and from our data it is clear that the commissioners knew (or at least largely anticipated) what the local research would find – so why was there a need to collect these primary data? Overtly, it would appear that efforts are simply being duplicated. From our data the reasons for this appear to be twofold: a need to localise national findings in order to be convinced that the approach still holds merit locally (high saliency and high immediacy); and the need to be seen to do something. Both these are explored more fully below.

It is important to commissioners to be seen to do something, not only to address local need but also to address multiple concerns (getting work initiated across new partners, securing early wins across the new public health system, building new relationships and spending allocated monies). Accountability within the role of commissioners and planners is not all about the achievement of key result areas but is in managing informal (and largely covert) relationships and expectations too. This brings face validity to their activities (i.e. they appear to be doing what they should be doing) and helps to maintain credibility across stakeholders.

The need to localise evidence is very strong; high saliency and high immediacy seem to be core ingredients in mobilising evidence into action. A simple way of understanding the high saliency and high immediacy quadrant is that evidence here is ‘up close and real’. In the next section, we continue analysing the implications of this, beginning with a look at the role of local evidence. It is the findings of this local research and data gathering that are more influential in shaping Public Health commissioning and joint planning decisions (i.e. helping Public Health practitioners achieve their aims: improved local outcomes) in both case study sites.

It is in the artful craft of seasoned commissioners and planners in Public Health and the partner groups with which they work that the balance between these competing forces is resolved in order for action to be taken and the system achieves stability by consensual adjustment of competing perspectives. 221

Tacit knowledge and professional identity inform their behaviour in relation to not only what to do, but how best to proceed with that and the wider factors that may still impinge on any decision. In Thistletown, local crime data, footfall and safety statistics that identify problematic areas suggest what factors to take into account when deciding whether or not to grant licences. Relationships with colleagues and the wider council agenda also informed choices (i.e. economic vibrancy and local reputation). We suggest that it is not possible to completely predict, in advance, which one of the factors in Figure 13 will be the most influential in any one setting. It is possible to imagine polar extremes ; for example, where a ground-breaking piece of science changes routine practice forever, overnight. It is equally possible to imagine situations where local political pressures dominate what action is taken, and equally it is possible to think that local people can make or break plans. It is to these three groups, science, politics and the public, that we offer a conceptual way of thinking about these competing tensions and a mid-range theory (see Figure 13 ).

A visual schema to illustrate competing forces and blended solutions in Public Health decision-making.

A mid-range theory: blended solutions and a visual schema

Above, we discussed that commissioning and planning decisions are held in abeyance under consideration subjecting them to multiple contextual factors. In Figure 13 we conceptualise this process as a tension across three main forces: politics/influence (power), science and evidence (truth), and public and acceptability (legitimacy).

To explain the figure we begin by using polar extremes. A fully red decision (ideological dictatorship) would be imposed with force against the will of the people and without scientific basis. A fully blue decision (scientific rationality) would reflect only logic without humanity or consideration of competing world-views. A fully yellow view might be anarchy without political structure or scientific order and discipline, where people would be left to please themselves. What we see in practice is the pull of the competing forces, some weaker and some stronger. Any resultant commissioning or planning decision may reflect the influence of the three forces differently, giving it, literally, a different hue.

In Thistletown, licensing decisions taken in line with local culture (yellow) and with strong local political and trade influence (red) contains ‘less blue’ (weaker reflection of the evidence base), giving a more ‘orange’ decision. In Rosetown, some ‘blue’ exists as midwives collect data in answer to the antenatal booking questions on alcohol consumption and practice in accordance with the evidence as it is embedded in guidance from the RCM. However, in the absence of unified messages from research evidence, this message is dissipated. In absence of the ‘blue’ here, the midwives may draw on personal values and personal experience to give legitimacy to their choices (yellow).

Across different settings and even within the same setting (at different times), the strength of each force will differ (by issue, risk, according to the personalities of those involved, the history, etc.). The schema gives a way of understanding local variation and permits reflection on the somewhat unpredictable ebb and flow of contextual factors in shaping local public health decisions and the nature of interventions (outcomes). The use of evidence in public health decision-making (in both contexts) is fiercely pragmatic, requiring the balancing of scientific evidence with professional judgement in the light of prevailing local conditions. Our findings suggest that this is vital in achieving the sound application of evidence of all types.

Democratic legitimacy

In our case study sites (particularly in Thistletown), the participants referred to the need for any decision taken to have democratic legitimacy . By this they did not mean that the public health decisions taken were subject to a vote or consultation, or that the decisions had to be taken by democratically elected members. To understand what they did mean, it is worth returning to the schema and looking at the yellow force: the ‘people’. In neither of our case studies did ‘the people’ directly get to input to the commissioning or joint planning decisions taken: they simply did not have a direct voice. The schema reflects this, and the ‘pure’ yellow line is thin. The public can directly shape decisions via, for example, pressure groups, social movements and protests; however, most often there is no public ‘voice’ asserting direct influence. Yet the blue and red shapes surrounding the yellow have their colours changed by the yellow influence. Public Health decision-makers and elected members alike can, and often do, shape their decisions on what they think will be acceptable to the public, be feasible in their settings and make the lives of local people better. The public presence is definitely there. In our data there was a strong backdrop (almost a moral dimension to the decision-making: trying to achieve the greatest possible good – utilitarianism). The power base behind the elected members (in Thistletown) arises directly from their position in being elected to ‘speak for’ the people. The power of the foundation trusts in Rosetown arises directly from their capacity to deliver (or not) services to so many people. The people’s voice (the democratic legitimacy) is negotiated among the players active in the commissioning process (commissioners, planners, elected members, etc.) and most often not directly by members of the public, but the assumed public voice is strong . To twist Derrida’s notion, the public is almost like a ‘present absence’. 224 Exactly who is seen to speak most faithfully on behalf of the people (what they want, what is important or good for them) was often at the heart of the differences in views across the stakeholder groups.

The ontological status of the schema

Realist approaches permit the building of mid-range theories. We suggest that the schema above is a mid-range theory presented visually; 225 however, there are a number of caveats and limitations to the schema that need to be outlined. First, here, in using the schema to help understand the use of Public Health evidence in commissioning and joint planning we envisage two other competing forces: political forces, and public concerns and aspirations. There could be others; for example, economic forces, risk/safety and legal forces. In the case study sites where economic considerations were part of the action, they clearly fell into the political domain (e.g. in Thistletown as the influence of the ‘night-time economy’). It is possible that if the figure is extended as a heuristic device to explain other situations where competing forces act concurrently to shape planning and practice activity, then the forces identified may change to give different pulls across the schema.

Second, colours are allocated to the competing forces to illustrate the resultant blend between the forces. However, even the colours themselves cannot be taken as constants; given the complexity of the world and its ever-changing nature, what constitutes bright blue today might be different tomorrow (as the evidence base changes). Similarly, what constitutes bright red (power/influence) might also change as elections see the rise and demise of different influential groups, and so the colours themselves may mean different things over time. In other words, although the colours show the blend of factors, we do not know what they represent in the real world. The public health interventions put in place today as the result of a light purple blend may be very different from what that same blend would have looked like 50 years ago or 50 years in the future. The schema and the ideas it illustrates are abstractions, perhaps best used to prompt thinking about how the forces inter-relate , consider the implications of this and devise possibly more useful blends, rather than suggest what direct activity any particular colour represents.

Third, it is necessary to demonstrate the capacity of the schema to illustrate our case study findings. In Thistletown, the full range of dilemmas involved in the consideration of licensing applications can be illustrated in the following example (we have modified the example to preserve anonymity).

There is a (fictitious) piece of local wasteland in an alcohol-dense (overprovided) area that a large supermarket chain wishes to develop. Their planning application includes an application to sell alcohol. Perhaps strict adherence to the local alcohol policy statement might lead to the rejection of the application in an overprovided area (blue). However, there is a rebuttable presumption to grant the licence (red) and legally it is not easy to demonstrate the contribution of this licence to health-related harms, as the premises have not yet sold any alcohol (red). In addition, the supermarket will bring jobs (yellow, red and blue) and sell fresh fruit and vegetables (yellow and blue), bring redevelopment to a crime-ridden area and pay for some upgrading to the roads and footpaths (yellow, blue and red).

It is difficult to be a purist adhering only to the research evidence as it is embedded in the alcohol policy statement (alcohol-related harms correlate to alcohol availability and outlet density) because, as the figure shows, a solution will/needs to meet multiple competing forces. Even if the solution disregards the alcohol research evidence, and the licence is granted and the supermarket is built, it may lead to health gains in other areas. Overall greater health gains may result from granting the licence. Ironically, a blend with less ‘blue’ may give greater health gains, suggesting that not all health gains (or the inter-related complexity between them) are captured by a siloed evidence base.

The schema shows us the inherent complexity in public health issues: what is in the interest of the public’s health? This issue is typically closed down by the controlled designs used to create (single-issue, often siloed) public health evidence, but re-emerges during the commissioning and joint planning processes. In this way, the figure allows us to see that debate, blending evidence types and sources, is not pathological but can result in commissioning and planning decisions that, while they seem to work against the strict research evidence base, actually may result in unrelated wider health gains. This involves taking a wide view of public health. In our democratic society the adversarial role of competing groups maintains checks on the excesses of a single approach and the same may be the case here.

In Rosetown, similar competing forces were observed. Midwives’ reluctance to ask questions regarding alcohol consumption of the pregnant women in their care could be interpreted as ‘resistance’ and a wilful disregard of the evidence base. However, this holds true only if one considers that the research evidence (e.g. on FASD) is the only possible health outcome. Our data suggest that practitioners may, in fact, believe that they are acting for the greater good (and for the wider health) of the women and their unborn children in not jeopardising the relationship and continuity of care. This also raises questions about who is the focus of public health interventions, mother or baby, when there are tensions in the evidence about what works best for whom and at different times. Answering realist questions in public health issues is complex.

The managerial mechanism: commissioning versus joint planning of Public Health interventions

So far we have discussed the similarities in the use of research and other types of evidence in both of our case study sites. Our findings suggest that the similarities far outweigh the differences; however, there are some differences. We have argued two things:

• First, that there are few evidence entry points and that formal research evidence tends to enter primarily at a strategic level and only at set times in the process (when reviews are undertaken and priorities set). Later in the commissioning (or planning) cycle, where these priorities are operationalised and interventions designed, the use of evidence and other types of information is largely person dependent.
• Second, we have also argued that the effective use of evidence means taking account of competing pressures in the context to achieve the most feasible and acceptable blend and work towards a wider appreciation of what is in the interest of the public’s health. In line with this, both case study participants emphasised the importance of discussion, co-ordination and collaboration across partners holding shared responsibility for intervention development and delivery.

It was unclear at the start of this project whether it is easier to secure the use of research evidence via a legal contracting process (across the purchaser–provider split) or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. It is now much clearer from the data that the different managerial mechanisms permitted this negotiated space to varying extents. Chapter 5 details the difficulties experienced in creating opportunities to discuss options over the purchaser–provider split. Under commissioning (and procurement) restrictions, participants talked about the difficulties of meeting to agree plans and actions and having to use informal (uncondoned) links across the purchaser–provider split to work towards feasible and acceptable solutions. In Thistletown, under joint organisational arrangements the first thing that happened in our work with them (somewhat delaying our entry) was a meeting across partner organisations to agree participation and decide on the topic (no equivalent meeting happened in Rosetown).

Commissioning attempts to give the commissioning organisation increased legal contractual power (red) to help them to lever their preferred choice across the competing forces, but in doing so this drastically reduces the legitimate opportunities for achieving the democratic legitimacy we outline above. Ironically, in not allowing the blend of the competing forces to be resolved through agreement (finding a ‘natural’ balance within a complex system), other parties may resort to red solutions, too (e.g. the power exerted by foundation trusts and other providers in commissioning processes), in order to push back to redress the balance.

• Recommendations for practice and future research

Above, we have used the saliency/immediacy mid-range theory to locate our findings and begin to explain the sociocultural mechanisms at play in our contexts. A second mid-range theory, as a visual schema of the competing tensions at play when making complex decisions to address wicked problems in public health, has been presented. Next, we end by making some recommendations for further research.

We fully acknowledge that this has been a small study, and care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings.

Recommendations for practice

Few evidence entry points.

In both sites there were few official evidence entry points where there was a requirement to pull research evidence into the decision-making process (and not all of these were used). When research evidence is pulled in, this is mainly to refresh strategic documents (e.g. Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and strategy documents); this identifies public health need, but not necessarily solutions. Beyond this, the research evidence base is rarely directly considered, unless driven by the particular interests of individual commissioners. With a burgeoning evidence base and increased efforts to share research evidence across sector boundaries (e.g. fuelled by the impact agenda within the research excellence framework), it is arguable that a duty lies with organisations to ensure that they manage their use of evidence more effectively.

Professional expertise, tacit knowledge and local and organisational memory are extensively drawn on to decide on commissioning and planning decisions and activities. Research evidence is pushed into the organisations from several providers (universities directly, evidence synthesis organisations, e.g. NICE, and other national bodies, e.g. PHE).

Recommendation: if organisations take seriously their commitment to use the evidence base, then more formal effort could be taken to mobilise the evidence that does exist. There may be many ways of achieving this (beyond simply circulating paper and electronic copies of guidance, etc.): by actively incorporating evidence on interventions (what works, as well as what does not work) into documentation; creating a standing agenda item in commissioning meetings on the research evidence base; co-opting information scientists, analysts and possibly academics on to commissioning groups (and using their skills); identifying the evidence base in commissioning specifications; and senior leaders setting an expectation that consulting the evidence base is culturally the ‘done thing’.

Gaps in quantitative data

This study has identified some real gaps in national and local data capture in the areas of alcohol licensing and maternal alcohol consumption (with data not recorded consistently, or not collated and located in one place, or based on self-reports, or not collected at all). Performance indicators (and other measures of quality) have changed, as have the organisations both that collected them and on which they are based. Some data are available only within the NHS (see the start of this chapter). It is difficult for commissioners to make sound decisions when they are unable to obtain feedback and assess how well current or previous services are working. It is also difficult for academic researchers to draw sound conclusions using valued quantitative metrics. Without sound data capture, which is both consistent and longitudinal, it is difficult to establish if change is an improvement and is impacting positively on health outcomes.

Recommendation: the recent reforms are now operational and overarching bodies such as PHE are becoming established. It could be timely to review routine data capture and whether or not old systems still capture the right data in the right way for the new structures. We hope that this research is helpful in suggesting some areas of focus.

Recommendations for research funders

Cocreation, timescales and urgent research need.

It took more time than we expected to explain cocreation to our research participants, identify the topic and generally negotiate entry – longer than the 4 months built into the proposal. Arguably, if the practitioners with whom we had worked on the bid had been our research participants, this delay might not have occurred, as they would already have been familiar with the approach and research aims and wanted to work with us in this way (rather than having to be ‘persuaded’ as our sites were). This suggests that cocreation will work more smoothly if the practitioners who write the bid are to be the research participants. However, as in all complex systems, this ‘solution’ creates additional ‘problems’. Our aim was to work on a topic that was of urgent pressing need for our research participants, and it is not at all clear if the length of time from writing of the proposal through to outline and full stage of application, contracting and recruitment of researchers, all necessary and rigorous processes, would make this possible. It is likely that any issue identified as pressing would be different by the time funding was actually secured (and even more distant once data were collected and results were known). Our research participants already stated surprise and frustration at the time that fieldwork took to get under way (after ethics and R&D approvals had been sought).

Recommendations: there is no one clear way forward here. Several possible parallel steps may ameliorate these issues. For pressing, urgent practice research needs, a rapid and responsive mode of national research application could be created. This would help to keep national research funders aligned with fast-changing practice contexts and needs. A different approach would be to devote national funding solely to longer-term issues (future big issues). A third alternative is that, if national funding is sought for urgent participant-led topics (i.e. following the approach adopted in this study), considerably more time would be allowed for both negotiated entry and consultation during the write-up stages. This entry period would need to be funded in order to allow the research staff who would work at the sites to work alongside and build trust with the research participants.

Recommendations for researchers and educators

Making evidence fit for purpose.

Often, the public health research, data and intelligence identified in this study were focused on the nature, prevalence and trends of the problem and much less focused on ‘what to do about it’. This public health research evidence base was often seen as dull, difficult to understand, out of date, largely irrelevant to prevailing local conditions and carrying no actionable messages. Both sites conducted their own local data gathering to create clear actionable messages. Often it was this small-scale local ‘research’ that shaped commissioning and planning decisions. There is often plentiful narrative and qualitative evidence [the sheer scale of which, some argue, can ‘build its own convincingness’ (Foreword) 226 ]. The increasing attention being paid to the impact agenda with the research excellence framework provides recognition to researchers who work in applied research areas and an impetus for researchers more generally to get their research to ‘make a difference’. Research evidence does not ‘speak for itself’.

Recommendations: while many academics already carry out applied and engaged research, there is still scope to develop these approaches further. Academics might consider widening what counts as ‘good evidence’ (not judged solely by its internal rigour) to its external validity and its capacity to be useful (and used) in practice and draw on wider sources of evidence beyond the confines of the hierarchy of evidence (e.g. Cochrane reviews) and to include the contextual pressures that mediate on the effects of ‘what works’ in messy contexts. Evidence does not speak for itself, but needs key messages to be highlighted and presented in clear, active messages to a targeted audience in a way that helps them in their tasks. 53 Academics might also consider using local respected practitioners to pass on key research messages to inform practice and consider what can be learned from the small ‘research companies’ that carry out locally commissioned work for practitioners: why are their ‘research products’ more useful in situ than traditional research approaches? Can any of this learning be used to make robust research evidence more fit-for-purpose, usable and used in practice?

For educators, teaching the substantive health topics is of vital importance, but it is also important to consider teaching students interpersonal skills in persuading and influencing others and in how to have difficult conversations. This may equip them to handle the difficult (sometimes politically charged, sometimes embarrassing) conversations they will need to have in their jobs. This may help to mobilise research evidence in both decision-making and therapeutic settings, without alienating colleagues or clients.

Working in cocreation

Awareness raising was needed to prepare research participants for working in cocreation. The time needed by all stakeholders to engage in cocreation was considerable, and difficult to achieve amid competing pressure (especially in times of significant change). Stakeholders, if not all engaged from the beginning, risk seeing efforts to collaborate as imposing events on them (rather than working with them to find solutions). Not all practitioners (or stakeholder organisations) were willing or able to engage. We reflected in Chapter 7 that because our case study participants were located some distance away from us, we remained ‘outsiders’ and, though we spent short periods of time on site (interviewing and observing formal meetings), this was probably insufficient to build the familiarity and trust needed for full cocreation. We missed the ad hoc conversations, chats in the corridor and impromptu meetings, where some of the work and decision-making associated with planning and commissioning happened (i.e. in the informal spaces between formal meetings).

Recommendations: build in additional, funded research time to facilitate the approach and be prepared to explain what is being done, when and why to raise awareness at all stages of the processes. Cocreation worked better where participants were fully informed (and understood) what was involved, where all stakeholders were willing to engage from the start and where competing tensions were accommodated (e.g. emergency meetings) and collaborations were managed side by side. Simply adopting the orientation of ‘trying to be helpful’, of being ‘guests’, and ‘not being the experts in the room’ was a good starting place. In practical terms, personalities, historical tensions and ongoing churn will be present in any context. A non-judgemental, pragmatic approach, non-partisan and with incremental adjustments to remain feasible, allows the approach to be adapted to the setting rather than sticking to a regimented plan. It is likely that cocreation might be more successful (build greater trust, reach more ‘hidden’ areas) if conducted on site (through secondment and possibly within an ethnographic design).

Recommendations for future research

Researching the new public health system’s use of evidence.

It is difficult to identify examples where research evidence is used directly. We found only one example where a piece of research evidence was directly used. Clearly if evidence is used, the overt use of individual studies is not how this is done . Most often an evidence-informed backdrop is assumed (informed by the strategic documents), but this is largely unspoken. More work is needed to understand what using research evidence actually entails if not direct, instrumental application. In addition, we did not get to observe the HWB in Rosetown, as they declined to take part in the research as they were still in the process of formation and grappling with their own key processes. Given that they are the main receivers and synthesisers of research evidence, and responsible for its cascade and flow in their formation of the Health and Well-being Board strategy and the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment ( the main evidence entry point), and that these documents shape all the activity that follows, their role in the promotion of research mobilisation is paramount.

Recommendations: it would be useful to research this process further. The new public health system (and wider health and public sector landscape) is so new that it is not clear how, why and what types of information are included (or excluded) from these documents and to what extent practical solutions for local action are (or can be) identified and who does this work. It is also unclear what the roles of other key stakeholders are in this process (e.g. CCGs, PHE and NHS England). It is likely that evidence (of all types) is flowing not only downwards from the HWB, but also across and backwards and forwards between these bodies. It is unclear what evidence entry points exist in each of them and how these bodies manage these processes both internally and across their boundaries to their partners. These processes have the potential to spread research evidence use more widely or alternatively curtail and close off research evidence use locally (reducing variability in practice in a non-evidence informed direction). This merits further investigation.

Researching the elusive nature of commissioning

Commissioning and planning as activities were difficult to pin down [i.e. not a clear-cut thing (one-off decision) happening in an easily identifiable place]. In the research we interviewed key stakeholders and observed the places where we believed the core activity to be taking place, but we did not get to see all of the places (i.e. Licensing Board meetings in Thistletown and informal meetings between commissioners and providers in Rosetown, or e-mail correspondence in either site) where some of the decision-making/action undoubtedly took place. In our study (and our data which is based solely on one commissioning site), research utilisation was made more difficult to achieve across the purchaser–provider split because it reduced the opportunities for interaction on which evidence flow largely depends. 17 , 19 , 21 , 30 , 50 – 52 , 55 , 69 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 81 – 86 , 90 – 92 The non-engagement of all stakeholders removed the opportunity to ‘achieve stability by consensual adjustment of competing perspectives’. 221 However, in practice there are different models of commissioning 225 , 227 and the same may not hold true for all of them. It may be that engagement and ownership (or lack of it) are the key sociocultural mechanisms for achieving the sharing of knowledge (and that this is, in turn, facilitated by saliency and immediacy as we have attempted to illustrate) that is driving this finding. Our conclusion here is based on our data which suggest that, within joint planning, engagement is required, and within commissioning engagement is sometimes rejected in favour of the ‘Chinese wall’ that contracting (non-transparent and at a distance) offers. In summary, joint planning provides the context (C) whereby the mechanism (M) (of engagement and ownership) flourishes and helps to shape the outcome (O) of shared knowledge (CMO combination).

Recommendations: it would be helpful to understand how evidence flows in the different models of commissioning. In addition, research that shadowed commissioners and decision-makers to explore the activity that happens in the informal spaces (and the role these places serve in shaping evidence use) to illuminate the full process would be helpful in understanding how to shape evidence for different purposes. Formal research accounts (data and statistics) may fit better with strategic documents, but personal accounts (patient and client stories) may be more impactful in the informal spaces.

Is cocreation worth it?

Our research participants did not fully engage in the research process. Partly, this might have been due to lack of capacity or capability, or the unsettled and changing context in which our fieldwork took place. Our research shows that, where interpretation was shared, new insight was gained and that our research participants believed that involvement in the research had moved their thinking forward. We were able to point not only to such intangible outcomes of working in cocreation but also to some tangible changes (e.g. the creation of a new post in Thistletown to supply public health evidence the gaps in the process that we identified). It would be useful to know more about the barriers and facilitators to active engagement and whether or not the time, effort and resource (meeting time) on the part of the research team and the research participants make this effort worthwhile (tangible and intangible results and possibly cost–benefit analysis).

Recommendations: within the ever-growing emphasis on translational research (impact ‘making a difference’ and ‘what works’) researchers are increasingly working in new ways and in places (mid-way between academe and practice) more than ever before, yet the methodological development for doing this well lags behind. Barriers and facilitators to evidence use are increasingly well known, but what is less well known is how a research evidence base and research efforts can address these. A stream of funding dedicated to the in-between world of knowledge brokerage 20 would move theory and research practice beyond viewing translational research as merely a dissemination activity.

Competing tensions in shaping public health interventions

There would be merit in exploring how the competing tensions schema (above) holds up to further testing. As a visual schema, it would have immediacy and, if the competing forces relate to the setting in question, it would also have saliency. It could prove to be a powerful tool in allowing different stakeholders to examine their decision-making and depersonalise sensitive issues that are hard to raise in order to identify the forces that shape the final outcomes. This would enable those making the decisions to ‘stand back’, view their decision-making process more objectively and consider all of the issues and pressures openly, and allow them to assess how, what and if they should privilege different forces. This could empower all stakeholders in the decision-making process. It would also be useful to explore the mid-range theory that identifies immediacy and saliency as core mechanisms in facilitating evidence use and the implications that this may have for the way research findings are created and offered for uptake.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Rushmer RK, Cheetham M, Cox L, et al. Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Aug. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 3.33.) Chapter 8, Discussion and concluding remarks.
• PDF version of this title (6.1M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Discussion and concluding remarks - Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisat... Discussion and concluding remarks - Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Making Your Case: Famous (and Infamous) Cases

• Famous (and Infamous) Cases
• Research Guides & Organizations
• Journals and News
• Westlaw and Lexis
• Print Resources
• Video and Audio Resources
• Evaluating Internet Resources
• Famous Trials Collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history.

Opening Statements

1868: Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson

• Opening Statement by Benjamin Butler for the House of Representatives
• Opening Statement of Benjamin Curtis for President Johnson

1873: Trial of Susan B. Anthony

• Opening Statement by U.S. District Attorney Richard Crowley
• Opening Statement by Hon. Henry R. Selden for the Defense

1893: Trial of Lizzie Borden

• Opening Statement by A. J. Jennings for the Defense

1945: Nuremburg Trials

• Opening Statement of Justice Robert H Jackson
• Opening Statement by Brigadier General Telford Taylor in the Doctors Trial

1987: Trial of Bernhard Goetz

• Opening Statement for the Defendant by Barry Slotnick
• Opening Statement for the Prosecution by Gregory Waples

1997: Trial of Timothy McVeigh 

• Opening Statement of the Prosecution
• Opening Statement of the Defense

2006: Trial of Zacarias Moussaoui

• Opening Statement by U.S. Attorney Robert Spencer
• Opening Statement by Defense Attorney Edward MacMahon

Closing Arguments

• Closing Argument of Thaddeus Stevens for the House of Representatives  
• Closing Argument of Attorney General Henry Stanbery for President Johnson

1907: Trial of Bill Haywood (labor leader)

• Summation by the Prosecution
• Summation of Clarence Darrow

1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

• Closing Argument of Charles S. Bostwick for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Max D. Steuer for the Defense

1921: Black Sox Trial

• Excerpts of Closing Arguments

1921 Sacco and Vanzetti Trial

• Closing Argument of Frederick G. Katzmann for the Prosecution
• Closing Argument of Fred Moore for the Defense
• Closing Argument of Jeremiah J. McAnarney for the Defense

1924: Trial of Leopold & Loeb

• Robert Crowe's Summation for the State
• Clarence Darrow's Summation for the Defense

1946: Nuremburg Trials

• Closing Argument of Justice Robert Jackson

1969-70: "Chicago 8" Trial

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Thomas Foran
• Closing Argument for the Defendants by William Kunstler

1970-71: Trial of Charles Manson

• Closing Argument for the Prosecution by Vincent Bugliosi

1995: O.J. Simpson Trial

• Closing Argument of Johnnie Cochran
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Trial Skills >>
• Last Updated: Sep 28, 2023 12:17 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/opening

How to greet the audience at the beginning of a PhD defense talk/presentation?

1 expert answer.

Jeremiah J. answered • 04/11/19

Science Communication Advisor specializing in Oral Presentations

First off, congratulations on reaching your defense! You did something not many people get to do (including me), so take some time to feel excited in-between feeling nervous.

There are standard ways to begin a talk, and generally, these aren't bad to memorize. For one, having a low-impact (and brief) start to your presentation memorized will let you look away from your computer and out at the audience. You'll be able to make eye contact with your colleagues, friends, and maybe family, and use their delight and smiles to boost your mood.

So something like, "My name is [______], and welcome to my thesis defense. So thank you to my committee [take a second to look them each in the eyes as you say it], my friends [find them in the audience and smile at them], and colleagues [same thing here] for coming here and finding this room. Thank you for your support and your attendance. I'm here to tell you about the results of my research over the last [five, six, or seven] years of my life. So without any further ado, let me begin."

(and then you can begin)

From the defenses that I went to, people waited to name specific names at the end of their talk in a sort of pre-question acknowledgement section. So that's when you can pull out the specific titles and names of your committee members. Starting with the general acknowledgement keeps it short, but it also gives you a moment to collect yourself that should (in my experience) make the whole presentation go easier.

In the end, think about what you said about remembering the beginning of your colleagues' defenses: you didn't remember. In other words, you can't mess this up! People are there to celebrate with you -- even if your committee still has the final say -- so try and keep that in mind.

Good luck, and have fun. Congratulations again!

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Get a free answer to a quick problem. Most questions answered within 4 hours.

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.

RELATED TOPICS

Related questions, which statement below accurately illustrates dual coding as it relates to the use of sensory aids.

Answers · 2

Can you give me a powerful hook regarding the topic "Increase in Tuition Fees?

Answers · 3

i need help choosing a topic for my speech

Answers · 7

business speaking

Answers · 1

why don't I have any friends?

Recommended tutors.

Christal-Joy T.

find an online tutor

• Speech tutors
• Extemporaneous Speaking tutors
• Public Speaking tutors
• Dissertation Writing tutors
• Language Arts tutors
• Marketing tutors
• Sign Language tutors
• Image Processing tutors

related lessons

• Need help with something else? Try one of our lessons.
• Need help with something else? Try searching for a tutor.

• Career Advice for Researchers

Q: How do I defend my research?

Asked by yustin luunga solly on 11 Feb, 2020

It is not clear what you mean by “defend research.” It could mean either defending your thesis (during the thesis defense) or defending or justifying your research in a research paper.

If you mean defending your thesis , here are some broad strategies you can employ:

• Know your thesis very well. As you have spent considerable time working on your thesis, you should be very familiar with your thesis. Nevertheless, before the defense, spend some time going through it again.
• Ensure your supervisor has reviewed and approved your thesis. This is to ensure they are able to guide you appropriately in the run-up to the defense. Read this researcher story for the negative consequences of a supervisor not having reviewed the thesis before the defense.
• Prepare responses to potential questions that may be asked during the defense. Based on your topic, prepare a few questions the examiners are likely to ask you during the defense and your responses to them. In case you are asked unfamiliar questions, do provide a response to the best of your understanding because, apart from your knowledge of the topic, examiners are also keen to know how well you think as an academic scholar.

For more information on preparing for a thesis defense, you may refer to the following resources:

• What can I do to ensure that my thesis defense is successful?
• What questions are likely to be asked during a thesis defense?
• How I hurdled my way to a successful thesis defense

Now, if you mean justifying your research , you need to talk about the rationale or justification of the study in the Introduction section of your paper. You need to talk about why you believe this research is needed, what gaps in existing research it will address, and how it will add to the existing knowledge around the topic. For this, you first need to review existing studies during your literature review.

For more information on writing the rationale or justification of the research, you may refer to the following resources:

• How to write the rationale or justification of a study?
• How to build the rationale of the study if there is no research gap?
• Can you give an example of the "rationale of a study"?

Answered by Editage Insights on 14 Feb, 2020

• Upvote this Answer

This content belongs to the Career Growth Stage

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

• ​​ Strategic Planning a​n​d Committees
• National Biodefense Strategy
• Opening Remarks ​

Opening Remarks

Biodefense summit transcript.

Remarks by Kelvin Droegemeier, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Excecutive Office of the President

​ >> CICELY WATERS: Thank you very much, Dr. Dzau. I now welcome Dr. Kevin Droegemeier, director Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Dr. Droegemeier?

( Applause .)

>> KELVIN DROEGEMEIER: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. It's great to have you all here. Um, thank you so much for that introduction. Victor, it's great to see you, and Secretary Azar and Dr. Kadlec, it's a privilege to be here with all of you. Um, you know, you are the best minds in the country, um, and I think this multi sector activity, bringing together academia, private sector, um, our government entities, and maybe even some folks from non profit found​ations, that's really what makes our research enterprise so incredibly powerful, so incredibly strong, underpinned with American values, and tackling the kind of challenges that we're going to be talking about in this meeting is really extraordinarily and, I think, really takes all of what we have as a nation to bring to bear on, um, so, I really do appreciate you being here to talk, it really is the very first meeting on the, um, on the national biodefense strategy. Um, as director of OSTP, I have a very simple, but very wonderful job, and that is to make sure that America's research and technology and education enterprise leads the world. Um, it's a very, very important charge, something I take very seriously, and as you all well know, biological threats are among the most serious and complicated threats that our nation faces, and the implications are really extraordinary.

Spending public health, national security, and also the economy, and to lead the world, we obviously have to tackle these challenges head on, and the fact that you're here today to have this very important conversation, not just to talk about it, but to take action on it, really, for me, as a scientist, is extremely important, and I'm very warmed by that, so I want to thank all of you for taking the time to do this. You could be anywhere, doing anything, right now, but you've chosen to be here, to invest your time in this really important activity, so thank you for that. Um, the response to the next biological accident or threat or nationally occurring outbreak is going to require really important unique solutions that are designed by academic researchers and private industry, federal government, non profits, this multi sector partnership that I mentioned is so important, and it's the collaborative spirit across this R & D ecosystem that is really important in tackling challenges of this magnitude, and it'll really help, um, keep us as global leaders in this important challenge. Um, in addition to strengthening the R & D ecosystem, the innovation that we're going to be talking about will create meaningful solutions to biodefense threats. It can actually be deployed on the front lines to thwart some of the challenges we face here. The best defense against potential biological threats is to drive technological advancements that allow us to identify, respond, recover faster, with greater specificity than ever before.

Now, as a guy who comes from Oklahoma, and we play a lot of football down there, I can tell you that you don't win games based on defense, you have to have a strong offense, and, so, even though we talk about biodefense, I think what we're really talking about is getting our house in order so that we can thwart the defense of activities with a strong offense. So, really, what you're doing is you're looking to play a strong offensive game, and I think that's really extraordinary. Um, so, with all that in mind, I think you all know that President Trump prioritized biodefense in releasing the national biodefense strategy last September, and it represents, really, the first coordinated effort to orchestrate the full range of all of our biodefense activities, carried out across the entire country, all the sectors we've talked about, to protect the American people from all bio threats, and that's really what this summit is about today, and it's what, it demonstrates that you all are tackling that problem. We are now assessing the U.S. biodefense enterprise to identify gaps in both our policy and our capabilities. We want to describe and understand key challenges to the implementation of this strategy. We also want to inform joint policy guidance and priority areas of biodefense. You know, policy is so terribly important that we have to really make sure that we're moving any barriers that stand in our way to moving forward in a thoughtful way, in a way that really achieves the goals that we have outlined here. This will allow us to, all these policy decisions will allow us to explore how existing U.S. government programs and combining with the resources of academia and the private sector, non profits, can all be applied to support the strategy that has been outlined in the document that the President brought forward.

So, as we move now to fully implement the goals and objectives in the national biodefense strategy, we really want to join hands, we want to strive together to strengthen our nation's leadership in the global biodefense enterprise. We want to leverage the collective strength that we all have, all the stakeholders through partnerships, and that's something you'll hear me talk a lot about at OSTP, is the multi sector partnerships. It's not just the government, just the academy, just the private sector, just the non profits, but when you join forces, you bring those things together, no other nation on Earth can do that the way that we can, underpinned with the values that we hold so dear, to collaborate in an open research enterprise that seeks to achieve really big, bold goals. So, we want to ensure that we are promoting and maintaining this research environment that is so extraordinary and has been so important for American leadership since World War II, to really not only maintain it, but to take it to the next level. So, your efforts today really are laying the foundation for a safer, healthier future for all Americans, and through mechanisms, such as the interagency body, the national science technology council, which I have the privilege to chair, which is an interagency council, intergovernmental council that brings together not only the government stakeholders, but also involves, um, other sectors, bringing them to the table, um, I look forward, as a director of OSTP and all folks in my organization, in working with you as full fledge partners to advance our nation's agenda in biodefense. So, again, thank you so much for all that you're doing. We stand ready as a full fledge partner to help you, if there are any challenges you face, any ways that OSTP can be helpful, please reach out to me, contact me, and come to the White House, and we'll certainly chat, and we want to be as helpful as we possibly can. So, thank you. Godspeed, as you do this important work, and we're ready to help however we can. Good morning, and thank you very much.

********************************************************************

Advertisement

Opening Statements in Trump’s Criminal Trial: Five Takeaways

Prosecutors signaled a sweeping case and Donald J. Trump’s lawyers began their assault on witnesses’ credibility. The judge seems intent on expediting the first trial of an American president.

• Share full article

By Jesse McKinley and Kate Christobek

• April 22, 2024

Monday marked another key moment in the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump: opening statements, during which the former president listened quietly to the prosecution’s allegations of crimes, and the defense’s counterargument that he was a simple man, wrongly accused.

The jury that will decide Mr. Trump’s case concentrated intently on the statements, which began the presentation of what will be weeks of testimony and other evidence, all in a tense courtroom in Lower Manhattan.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee once more, Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying 34 business records in an attempt to cover up a payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the days before the 2016 election. Ms. Daniels, who may testify, says that she and Mr. Trump had a sexual encounter in 2006, a claim the former president denies.

Mr. Trump has also denied the 34 felony charges, calling them orchestrated by Democrats; if convicted, the former president could face probation or up to four years in prison.

Here are five takeaways from Mr. Trump’s fifth day on trial:

The prosecution has a big story to tell.

The charges faced by Mr. Trump may sound bland — “falsifying business records” doesn’t really set the heart racing — but the prosecution made clear on Monday that it plans on painting a much broader picture.

Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, laid out in his opening statement a tale that touched on tabloid journalism , tawdry affairs and covertly recorded phone calls . Jurors will likely be told about events inside fancy hotel rooms, Trump Tower and even the Oval Office. And the stakes? The presidency.

All that suggests that the case will keep jurors wide-awake during the six or so weeks it is projected to take. Indeed, when asked if they wanted paper and pens to take notes, more than half of the people in the jury box (12 jurors and six alternates) raised their hands.

Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?

The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.

The defense wants to destroy prosecution witnesses.

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, used his opening statement to cast Mr. Trump’s actions leading to this case as run-of-the-mill business, and said that Mr. Trump is defending himself at trial, just as “any of us would do.”

He argued that the use of a nondisclosure agreement — the document Ms. Daniels signed after receiving the payment — was typical among the wealthy and the famous and “nothing illegal.” He continued that there was nothing wrong with trying to influence an election, adding: “It’s called democracy.”

Mr. Blanche also attacked Mr. Cohen, a former lawyer and fixer for Mr. Trump. He said Mr. Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance crimes in 2018, was a “criminal” who “can’t be trusted.” He added that Ms. Daniels was “biased” against Mr. Trump and made a living off her story about the sexual encounter.

He called the heart of the prosecution case just “34 pieces of paper” that don’t involve Mr. Trump.

Trump was muted during the abbreviated day in court.

On Mr. Trump’s way into the courtroom on Monday, he addressed reporters for about three minutes and blasted a range of perceived enemies, including New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, and the judge in a recent civil fraud case that resulted in a $454 million judgment against him.

But Mr. Trump’s behavior during opening statements reflected that he understood the gravity of the moment.

Mr. Trump made no outbursts during the prosecution’s opening statement, although he occasionally showed displeasure: He shook his head slightly at arguments that he orchestrated a scheme to corrupt the presidential election and then more strenuously when prosecutors said he was guilty of felonies.

During his own side’s opening statement, Mr. Trump sat largely motionless and expressionless watching his lawyer Mr. Blanche. Mr. Trump’s behavior was muted compared with his volatility during past Manhattan court appearances.

But at the conclusion of the trial day, Mr. Trump took his preferred spot in front of a television camera in the hallway, and spoke for more than nine minutes, attacking the prosecutor’s case — once again — as unfair.

David Pecker used to live on celebrity news. Now, he is the news.

Prosecutors’ first witness was David Pecker, the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer . He ambled to the stand and promptly gave a lesson in the ways of tabloid journalism, including the purchasing of articles — anything more than $10,000, he had to approve — and the significance of putting a famous face right out front.

“The only thing that was important is the cover of a magazine,” Mr. Pecker testified.

In about 30 minutes of testimony, Mr. Pecker also laid out trade secrets on sourcing, saying hotel workers and limo drivers could be a font of information on the rich and famous.

He seemed at ease: laughing at a prosecutor’s jokes, and sometimes directly addressing the jury just a few feet away.

We’re moving right along.

Over the past five trial days, the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, has shown that he is eager to keep this trial on schedule. He seems serious about keeping his word to the jurors that the trial will last six weeks.

On Monday, truncated by a juror’s dental emergency and the Passover holiday, he decided to start with the first witness — Mr. Pecker — despite having only half an hour left on his schedule.

On Tuesday, the court will first consider a prosecution motion to hold Mr. Trump in contempt over recent comments that they say violated a gag order meant to keep him from attacking participants in the trial and their families.

Then, Mr. Pecker will continue on the stand, probably diving deeper into the “catch-and-kill” scheme used to buy up — and cover up — unflattering stories, a central element of the prosecution’s narrative.

Court will end early again, at 2 p.m., for further observance of Passover and then will have its weekly Wednesday break.

But there is little indication that as the weeks pass, Justice Merchan will let the pace slacken.

Jesse McKinley is a Times reporter covering upstate New York, courts and politics. More about Jesse McKinley

Kate Christobek is a reporter covering the civil and criminal cases against former president Donald J. Trump for The Times. More about Kate Christobek

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

The criminal trial of Trump featured vivid testimony about a plot to protect his first presidential campaign  and the beginnings  of a tough cross-examination  of the prosecution’s initial witness, David Pecker , former publisher of The National Enquirer. Here are the takeaways .

Dozens of protesters calling for the justice system to punish Trump  briefly blocked traffic on several streets near the Lower Manhattan courthouse where he is facing his first criminal trial.

Prosecutors accused Trump of violating a gag order four additional times , saying that he continues to defy the judge’s directions  not to attack witnesses , prosecutors and jurors in his hush-money trial.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Could he go to prison ? And will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know , and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.

NY vs. Trump: Judge delivers jury instructions as opening statements kick off

T he judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan delivered the jury its instructions ahead of the prosecution and defense teams delivering their respective opening remarks Monday morning. 

Trump arrived at the Manhattan courthouse Monday morning , after 12 jurors and six alternates were seated and sworn in on the panel last week. Judge Juan Merchan on Monday morning detailed the panel's instructions, including reminding the jury that the defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution team proves Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The trial, which is anticipated to last six weeks, will allow jurors to take notes, but Merchan reiterated to the jurors that they cannot discuss the case with anyone, adding that they also cannot visit any places where a crime allegedly unfolded, and that they cannot research the case. 

TRUMP TRIAL: OPENING ARGUMENTS TO BEGIN AS TRUMP FLOUTS GAG ORDER AND ATTORNEY PREVIEWS DEFENSE

Merchan also explained to the panel that jurors must operate fairly, that the defense team is not required to prove Trump's innocence, and that the 45th president is also not required to testify. 

The jurors were reportedly listening intently as Merchan described their rules surrounding the case. The trial is not televised, but media is permitted in an overflow room in the courthouse. 

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM OFFERS PEEK AT STRATEGY AS OPENING STATEMENTS SET TO BEGIN AND MORE TOP HEADLINES

The trial’s origins reach back to October of 2016 , when Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen paid former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. 

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which would be a felony. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL: MEET THE JURORS WHO WILL HEAR BRAGG'S CASE AGAINST THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Monday's trial schedule will include opening remarks from both the prosecution and the defense teams, and is anticipated to hear from the first witness called by the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday, David Pecker. 

Pecker served as the former chairman of the National Enquirer’s parent company American Media Inc., and allegedly was a key figure of a "catch and kill" scheme ahead of the 2016 election. Daniels reportedly agreed to grant exclusive rights to the National Enquirer on her claims of an affair with Trump, with Pecker allegedly contacting Cohen to "purchase" Daniels' silence on the alleged affair. 

The trial Monday was supposed to conclude at 2 p.m., ahead of the Jewish holiday of Passover beginning at sundown, but will wrap up at 12:30 due to a juror's toothache and dental appointment. 

Trump slammed the trial in brief comments to the media earlier Monday, calling it a "Biden" trial and saying Americans should "understand" that his criminal trial is taking place "for the purposes of hurting the opponent of the worst president in the history of our country." 

"I just want to say before we begin — these are all Biden trials ," Trump said before opening statements were delivered Monday. "This is done as election interference. Everybody knows it." 

"I’m here instead of being able to be in Pennsylvania and Georgia and lots of other places campaigning, and it’s very unfair. Fortunately, the poll numbers are very good," Trump continued. "They’ve been going up because people understand what’s going on." 

Original article source: NY vs. Trump: Judge delivers jury instructions as opening statements kick off

• Updated Terms of Use
• New Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices
• Closed Caption Policy
• Accessibility Statement

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2024 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset . Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions . Legal Statement . Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper .

Trump trial: Opening arguments to begin as Trump flouts gag order and attorney previews defense

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him by manhattan da alvin bragg.

More alternate jurors seated in Trump trial

Fox News senior correspondent Eric Shawn reports on the ‘intensely emotional day in the courtroom’ and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy reacts to former President Trump calling for the N.Y. judge to remove his gag order.

Opening arguments in former President Trump’s historic and unprecedented criminal trial are set to begin Monday morning, and the judge is also expected to rule on several motions that could make the trial even more difficult for the former president.

The full jury of 12, plus six alternate jurors, were selected and sworn in on Friday after four days of jury selection. 

Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, instructed jurors on Friday not to discuss or to research anything relating to the former president’s case over the weekend or while serving on the panel. 

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

Merchan said opening arguments will be delivered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team and Trump defense attorneys. 

Former President Trump attends the first day of his criminal trial, at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on April 15, 2024. (Angela Weiss/AFP via AP Pool)

Trump,  the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges are related to alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts. He has blasted the trial as pure politics, a "political persecution" and maintains his innocence. The former president, and the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to "tell the truth" if he takes the stand. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL: MEET THE JURORS WHO WILL HEAR BRAGG'S CASE AGAINST THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Trump attorney Will Scharf told Fox News Channel on Sunday that the case should never have been brought, and that the facts are on his client's side.

"While the prosecution and the media are hell-bent on sensationalizing this case, we're focusing on the facts because the facts show that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong," Scharf said. "This is a business records case, those business records accurately reflected payments to one of President Trump's lawyers as legal retainer fees. Additionally, those records weren't actually entered by President Trump. He was busy running the country from the White House while all this was happening in Trump Tower in New York."

The former president is subject to a gag order, which Merchan imposed upon him last month before the trial began. Merchan ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case – other than Bragg – or about court staff, DA staff or family members of staff.

Merchan also ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about any prospective juror or chosen juror. But on Saturday, he let loose with an all-caps rant on his social media platform.

"THIS SCAM "RUSHED" TRIAL TAKING PLACE IN A 95% DEMOCRAT AREA IS A PLANNED AND COORDINATED WITCH HUNT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT 8 YEARS AGO, BUT EVERYBODY PASSED," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "INSTEAD THEY WAITED AND BROUGHT IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE WORST AND MOST INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT EVER, CROOKED JOE BIDEN. IT IS BEING PRESIDED OVER BY PERHAPS THE MOST CONFLICTED JUDGE IN JUDICIAL HISTORY, WHO MUST BE REMOVED FROM THIS HOAX IMMEDIATELY. I DID NOTHING WRONG!"

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg arrives at Manhattan criminal court, Tuesday, April 16, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

Bragg argued in the first week of the trial that Trump has violated his gag order more than seven times, and wants him to pay a $1,000 fine. Bragg, in his motion, urged the judge to warn the former president that another violation could be punishable by up to 30 days' incarceration. 

Trump and his defense attorneys have argued that the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not be bound by the gag order, and said it violates his First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of his supporters. 

The judge is expected to rule on whether Trump actually violated the order by early next week. 

Former President Trump listens as his attorney Todd Blanche speaks during a press conference at 40 Wall Street after a pre-trial hearing on March 25, 2024, in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Also Monday, Merchan said he would make a decision on what evidence Bragg's team can use in their effort to "discredit" the former president should he testify in his own defense. 

TRUMP SAYS BIDEN 'SHOULD BE IN JAIL' AND 'ON TRIAL,' WHILE BLASTING NY CASE: 'THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING'

Bragg, in a filing last week, said he intends to use Trump’s alleged prior "misconduct and criminal acts" to discredit him.

But Trump has never been convicted of a crime.

Bragg's office said it intends to refer to information from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against the former president and the determination from New York Judge Arthur Engoron after the months-long non-jury civil fraud trial against Trump and his family.

Court sketch showing former President Trump in Manhattan Criminal Court before Justice Juan Merchan, Monday, April 15, 2024. (Christine Cornell)

Engoron ruled Trump was liable for fraud and "falsifying business records," "issuing false financial statements," "conspiracy to falsify false financial statements," "insurance fraud" and "conspiracy to commit insurance fraud." 

Trump was required to post a slashed judgment bond of $175 million as he appeals the ruling.

BRAGG SAYS HE WILL TRY TO 'DISCREDIT' TRUMP IF HE TESTIFIES IN HIS DEFENSE DURING CRIMINAL TRIAL

That trial took place without a jury. Trump’s defense attorneys Friday objected to any cross-examination of the former president related to James’ case and Engoron’s ruling due to the appellate division’s decision to put the judgment on pause during appeal.

But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the findings from Engoron showed "persistent and repeated fraud and illegality." While the appellate division did pause the judgment, Colangelo said it says nothing about the merits of the case. 

Judge Juan Merchan in his chambers, Thursday, March 14, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Meanwhile, Bragg's office also intends to use information from E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump, and more. 

Trump defense attorneys on Friday said each piece of "evidence" Bragg's team hopes to use are "just distractions." 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump has said he will testify in his defense at the trial, telling reporters last week: "I tell the truth." 

Merchan said he will reserve his decision on what information prosecutors can cross-examine the president with until Monday morning. 

Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content.

You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!

More from Politics

Columbia University’s policy-making senate votes for resolution calling to investigate school’s leadership

St. Louis' toxic sites need faster cleanup, lawmakers and residents say

Kansas won't have legal medical pot or expand Medicaid for at least another year

Maine governor signs off on new gun laws, mental health supports in wake of Lewiston shootings

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Key takeaways from the opening statements in Donald Trump’s hush money trial

The start of opening statements in Donald Trump’s hush money trial set the stage for weeks of testimony about the former president’s personal life and places his legal troubles at the center of his closely contested campaign against President Joe Biden.

Opening statements in Donald Trump’s hush money trial set the stage for weeks of testimony about the former president’s personal life and places his legal troubles at the center of his closely contested campaign against President Joe Biden.

Former president Donald Trump, center, awaits the start of proceedings at Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. Opening statements in Donald Trump’s historic hush money trial are set to begin. Trump is accused of falsifying internal business records as part of an alleged scheme to bury stories he thought might hurt his presidential campaign in 2016. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool)

• Copy Link copied

Witness David Pecker, far right, talks on the witness stand while Donald Trump, far left, looks on as assistant district attorney Joshua Steingless asks questions with Judge Juan Merchan presiding in Manhattan criminal court Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

Former president Donald Trump speaks to the media after the first day of opening arguments in his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court for falsifying documents related to hush money payments, in New York, NY, on Monday, April 22, 2024. The former President is expected to spend the next 6 or so weeks in attendance at his trial for falsification of business records, to cover up payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult film star who allegedly had an encounter with the President before he was in office. Photographer: Victor J. Blue for The Washington Post/ Pool

Donald Trump stands as the jury files into the courtroom at the start of the trial in Manhattan criminal court Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

NEW YORK (AP) — Monday’s opening statements in the first criminal trial of a former American president provided a clear roadmap of how prosecutors will try to make the case that Donald Trump broke the law, and how the defense plans to fight the charges on multiple fronts.

Lawyers presented dueling narratives as jurors got their first glimpse into the prosecution accusing Trump of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to squelch negative stories about him during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Still to come are weeks of what’s likely to be dramatic and embarrassing testimony about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s personal life as he simultaneously campaigns to return to the White House in November.

Here’s a look at some key takeaways from opening statements:

ELECTION FRAUD VS. ‘BOOKKEEPING’ CASE

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying internal Trump Organization business records. But prosecutors made clear they do not want jurors to view this as a routine paper case. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the heart of the case is a scheme to “corrupt” the 2016 election by silencing people who were about to come forward with embarrassing stories Trump feared would hurt his campaign.

“No politician wants bad press,” Colangelo said. “But the evidence at trial will show that this was not spin or communication strategy. This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior.” He added: “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

The business records charges stem from things like invoices and checks that were deemed legal expenses in Trump Organization records when prosecutors say they were really reimbursements to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels. Daniels was threatening to go public with claims she had an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump. He says it never happened.

Prosecutors’ characterizations appear designed to combat suggestions by some pundits that the case — perhaps the only one that will go to trial before the November election — isn’t as serious as the other three prosecutions he’s facing. Those cases accuse Trump of trying to overturn the 2020 election he lost to President Joe Biden and illegally retaining classified documents after he left the White House.

Trump, meanwhile, sought to downplay the accusations while leaving the courtroom on Monday, calling it all a “bookkeeping” case and “a very minor thing.” But he, too, has said it’s all about an election — the one this November. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the case is part of a sweeping Democratic attempt to harm his chances at reclaiming the presidency.

TRUMP’S DEFENSE COMES INTO VIEW

Trump’s attorney used his opening statement to attack the case as baseless, saying the former president did nothing illegal.

The attorney, Todd Blanche, challenged prosecutors’ claim that Trump agreed to pay Daniels to aid his campaign, saying Trump was trying to “protect his family, his reputation and his brand.”

Blanche indicated the defense will argue that after all the very point of a presidential campaign is to try to influence an election.

“It’s called democracy,” Blanche told jurors. “They put something sinister on this idea, as if it was a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.”

Blanche also portrayed the ledger entries at issue in the case as pro forma actions performed by a Trump Organization employee. Trump “had nothing to do with” the allegedly false business records, “except that he signed the checks, in the White House, while he was running the country,” Blanche said. And he argued that the records’ references to legal expenses weren’t false, since Cohen was Trump’s personal lawyer at the time.

PROSECUTORS AIM TO PUT TRUMP AT THE CENTER

The 34 counts in the indictment are related to the payment to Daniels. But prosecutors plan to introduce evidence about a payoff to another woman — former Playboy model Karen McDougal — who claimed a sexual encounter with Trump, as well as to a Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about Trump having a child out of wedlock. Trump says they were all lies.

Prosecutors said they will show Trump was at the center of the scheme to silence the women, telling jurors they will hear Trump in his voice talking about the plan to pay McDougal. Cohen arranged for the publisher of the National Enquirer supermarket tabloid to pay McDougal $150,000 but not print the story in a practice known as “catch-and-kill.”

Colangelo told jurors that prosecutors will play for them a recording Cohen secretly made during a meeting with Trump weeks before the 2016 election. In the recording, which first became public in 2018, Trump is heard saying: “What do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?”

Trump “desperately did not want this information about Karen McDougal to become public because he was worried about its effect on the election,” Colangelo said.

COHEN’S CREDIBILITY IN THE SPOTLIGHT

The defense’s opening statement previewed what will be a key strategy of the defense: trying to discredit Cohen, a Trump loyalist turned critic and expected star witness for the prosecution. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money payments in 2018 and and served prison time .

Whether jurors believe Cohen, who says he arranged the payments to the women at Trump’s direction, could make or break the case for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office.

Trump’s lawyer highlighted Cohen’s criminal record, describing him as a serial liar who turned against Trump after he was not given a job in the administration and found himself in legal trouble. Blanche said Cohen’s “entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction,” noting he hosts podcasts and has written books bashing his ex-boss.

“He has a goal and an obsession with getting Trump,” Blanche said. “I submit to you that he cannot be trusted.”

Anticipating the defense attacks on Cohen, the prosecution promised to be upfront about the “mistakes” the former Trump attorney has made. But Colangelo said “you can credit Michael Cohen’s testimony” despite his past.

“I suspect the defense will go to great lengths to get you to reject his testimony precisely because it is so damning,” the prosecutor said.

BUT UP FIRST: DAVID PECKER

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker is the first witness for prosecutors, who say that Trump’s alleged scheme to conceal potentially damaging information from voters began with a 2015 Trump Tower meeting among the then-candidate, Pecker and Cohen. Pecker took the witness stand Monday before court broke for the day and his testimony is expected to continue Tuesday.

At the meeting, Pecker — a longtime Trump friend — agreed to aid Trump’s campaign by running favorable pieces about him, smearing his opponents, scouting unflattering stories about him and flagging them to Cohen for “catch-and-kill” deals. Those included the claims made by Daniels, McDougal and the former Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, prosecutors say. Trump says all were false.

Pecker will likely be asked about all the alleged efforts made by the Enquirer’s then-owner, American Media Inc., on Trump’s behalf. Federal prosecutors agreed in 2018 not to prosecute American Media in exchange for its cooperation in a campaign finance investigation that led to Cohen’s guilty plea, and the Federal Election Commission fined the company $187,500, calling the McDougal deal a “prohibited corporate in-kind contribution.”

Pecker’s brief turn on the stand Monday was mainly just about his background and other basic facts, though he did say the Enquirer practiced “checkbook journalism” — paying for stories — and that he had the final say on any story about a famous person.

‘THE DEFENDANT’ OR ’PRESIDENT TRUMP’?

The prosecutor referred to Trump during his opening statement as “the defendant.” Trump’s lawyer took a different tack, calling him “President Trump.”

“We will call him President Trump, out of respect for the office that he held,” Blanche said. At the same time, Trump’s lawyer sought to portray Trump as an everyman, describing him as a husband, father and fellow New Yorker.

“He’s, in some ways, larger than life. But he’s also here in this courtroom, doing what any of us would do: defending himself,” Blanche said.

Trump sat quietly while listening to opening statements, occasionally passing notes to his lawyers and whispering in their ears. But outside of the courtroom, he continued his pattern of trying to capitalize politically on the case that will require him to spend his days in a courtroom rather than on the campaign trail.

“This is what they’re trying to take me off the trail for. Checks being paid to a lawyer,” Trump said.

Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed.

• International

Trump criminal trial wraps for the day after opening statements and first witness

From CNN's Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle and Kara Scannell in the courthouse

Defense begins opening statement: "President Trump did not commit any crimes"

Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche began his opening statement by saying, "President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes.”

Prosecutor has wrapped up his opening statement

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo has wrapped up his opening statement. Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now up.

Prosecutor to jury: "We are confident you will have no reasonable doubt that Donald Trump is guilty"

"At the end of the case," Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo tells the jury, "we are confident you will have no reasonable doubt that Donald Trump is guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of a presidential election."

Colangelo said the allegations will be backed up by testimony from from witnesses like David Pecker and Keith Davidson, and an extensive paper trail including bank records, emails, text message, phone logs and business records.

Trump is writing and passing notes to lawyers as prosecutor outlines his alleged role in hush money payments

Donald Trump is still sitting back in his chair and not reacting to most of what Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is saying.

He is writing a lot and passing notes to his lawyers.

"You'll need to keep an open mind," prosecutor tells jury regarding Michael Cohen's testimony

Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo tells the jury in former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial that they will need to keep an open mind when assessing Michael Cohen's testimony.

"You’ll need to keep an open mind and carefully evaluate all of the evidence that corroborates Michael Cohen’s testimony," Colangelo said.

“Cohen’s testimony will be backed up,” by testimony from other witnesses and an extensive paper trail, including bank records, phone logs, business documents and other records," he added.

Michael Cohen's name will come up a lot during the trial, prosecutor tells jury

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo acknowledged the jury will hear that Michael Cohen, like other witnesses who will testify at trial, “has made mistakes in his past."

"During this trial, you will hear a lot about Michael Cohen," he said.

"I suspect the defense will go to great lengths to get you to reject his testimony, precisely because it is so damning," Colangelo said.

Jurors will hear about Cohen's criminal conviction for campaign finance violations, tax crimes and lying to Congress, Colangelo told jurors during his opening statement.

The jury will also see that Cohen is "publicly committed to making sure the defendant is held accountable for his role in this conspiracy."

Judge closely watching prosecutor giving opening statement

As prosecutor Matthew Colangelo gives his opening statement, Judge Juan Merchan is closely watching him.

Trump intended "nobody learn about the Stormy Daniels payoff," prosecutor says

Through the payments, Donald Trump "intended that nobody learn about the Stormy Daniels payoff," prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said.

Prosecutor says Trump doubled price of Stormy Daniels deal to "disguise it as income"

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said that when it came time for Donald Trump to pay Michael Cohen back for the "catch and kill deal" involving Stormy Daniels, "you’ll see he didn’t negotiate the price down. He doubled it. And he doubled it so they could disguise it as income."

Colangelo noted that Trump, Cohen and Allen Weisselberg agreed that Cohen would be paid back in monthly installments by sending fake invoices to the Trump Org each month.

It was a "clever way to pay Cohen back without being too obvious about it," the prosecutor told the jury.

The repayment to Cohen, as recorded in the business records, was "a double lie" because there was no retainer agreement and Cohen was not getting paid for legal services in 2017.

Here are key things to know about Cohen, and his role in the case:

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

Videos of what’s happening in the Defense Department.

• Feature Videos
• News Videos
• Operation Warp Speed

Austin Speaks at Ukraine Defense Meeting

Defense.gov.

• April 26, 2024 | 16:19

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III gives the opening remarks at the virtual Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting.

Helpful Links

• Live Events
• Today in DOD
• For the Media
• DOD Resources
• DOD Social Media Policy
• Help Center
• DOD / Military Websites
• Agency Financial Report
• Value of Service
• Taking Care of Our People
• FY 2025 Defense Budget
• National Defense Strategy

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.