Sarah defending

Last week I spent an exhilarating day at the VU University Amsterdam, the other major university in this city beside the University of Amsterdam. My first stop was to meet Peter Kerkhoff, the chair of Communication Science. We spoke about different approaches to the field, and he gave me his sense of how the two departments of communication complement one another. It reminds me in a sense of the two departments to which I belong back home, the Communication Department and the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media. Each approaches communication phenomena in somewhat different directions, as also seems to be the case at the two universities here. There are interesting points of overlap but even more interesting points of distinction that add vibrancy to the field. There and here.

  

My next stop was to meet Prof. Bart van den Hooff who had arranged for me to give a research talk in the business school at the VU. We first discussed the possibility a year ago at the International Communication Association conference last May, and I have been looking forward to it for some time. My research has intersected with that of scholars in organization studies on and off throughout the years, including a period when I was very active with the Academy of Management. Some of my recent projects involving Web 2.0 and how user-generated comments affect perceptions of people and products touches on some of the interests here, as it is a topic in a growing number of communication, advertising, and organization studies programs around the world. There were enough of us there that noon who have been studying online communication for long enough, that interesting questions arose about how similar some of the challenges facing social media use and research these days are to issues we used to ponder regarding virtual communities, USENET news groups, and other self-organizing groups of ad hoc collaborators.

The most enchanting part of the day came next when I got to participate in the doctoral dissertation defense of Sarah van der Land. A dissertation defense in the Netherlands is quite different than it is in the US.

In the US, we read the dissertation and convene for a defense, and although these events are by tradition and regulation open to the public, it is more frequently the case that only the doctoral candidate and the committee alone conduct the defense. The committee asks probing questions of the candidate, often quite difficult ones. This isn’t to torture the student one last time; it’s an important “teachable moment”. When you do research, you have to make choices about how to do it, and the choices often have implications for your ability to answer certain questions and sometimes to bury problems that may not have been anticipated which can threaten the validity or utility of a research project. So a dissertation defense in the US tends to be oriented toward seeing if the student can see the problems and what she thinks about them. It is a foreshadowing of the kinds of challenges a young scholar will encounter from journal reviewers and other critics of one's research that are crucial to the quality of the scientific process. So we press. The relative privacy of the American dissertation defense facilitates asking hard questions which are difficult enough to answer without having to worry about the opinions of onlookers and well-wishers.

In the Netherlands and other places the dissertation defense has the potential to explore these kinds of issues also, but the event is far more formal, less interactive, and extraordinarily more public.

The first step is that the promoters (advisors) and examining committee meet in closed session without the student. The co-promoters last week were Dr. Alexander Schouten and Dr. Frans Feldberg. The main promoter, who must be a full professor, was Prof. Marleen Huysman. (Please note we address faculty members who are still assistant or associate professors as Dr., reserving the title Professor for full professors. More on that later.) Professor Huysman and I also wore full academic regalia, as did Professor Elly Konijn, and the Dean of the College who ran the even from that point onward. The assistant and associate professors dressed in dark suits and ties or dresses. 

The Dean opened our meeting with a reading from the Bible, a custom at the VU given its historical religious affiliation. Then he asked us if we thought the dissertation was worthy of defense, which we all had previously indicated was the case, and affirmed once again to him. He reminded us of the protocol for entering the room, asking questions to the candidate, donning and removing one’s hat (for men), and the strict one hour time limit we would face. He made sure he knew who each of us was on the committee and had his information correct about our names, titles, and affiliations. I was the senior visiting professor from afar, so I would be given the honor of asking the first question.

When the time came for us to go into the great hall where the defense was taking place, we were summoned by the Beadle who escorted us into the hall and then left. This is an officiant who also wears formal academic regalia and carries a staff with bells. As the faculty entered everyone in attendance—about 100 people as far as I could tell—rose to their feet. It should always be like this, shouldn't it? We enter wearing our caps and gowns, and everyone rises upon our entrance? Pretty cool.

The defense began with Sarah van der Land’s 10 minute presentation about the research. Her research focused on the use of avatars in virtual group collaboration, and her ingenious presentation. included a video of avatars in virtual space; her own avatar narrated a part of the presentation as it flew through the virtual air and exhibited other behaviors. Unfortunately, the 10 minutes the candidate was allotted for all this came to an end with a sentence or two unfinished, but she was stopped. It is that formal. 

The committee members then joined the dean on the stage where (we removed our hats and) took our seats. I was introduced and I began my question as I had been instructed, by saying, “By the authority of the Rector Magnificus and according to my right,” i.e., the right I have as holder of a PhD, “I would like to ask the esteemed candidate a question. Two questions. My first question is, will you please finish the remaining sentences of the presentation you had begun?” She did, and I think she appreciated the opportunity to finish, which I was only too happy to provide. 

My next question had to do with the various capacities that avatars can exhibit and which of those she felt were the most important for virtual collaboration. My question was rather elaborate and took a minute or two to ask. The candidate answers at some length, following her initial response which is to say, “Learned opponent, thank you for the stimulating question.” She clarified the question, and then addressed it in a variety of ways using much of the 10 minutes allocated to her for answering.

The next committee member was my friend Professor Elly Konijn of the VU Communication Science department. Professor Konijn began her question with a compliment about the innovative and original work that the dissertation studies represented. Her question was much longer, allowing the candidate to give a more focused in her response.

 

After this, the next committee member, Dr Robin Teigland from the Stockholm School of Economics, asked a question or two, as did the next two members. We still had time to go and began a second round of questions. Yet before we got too far, the Beadle reappeared an announced loudly, “Hora est.” The hour is finished. The committee members rose (and the men replaced their hats), and the audience rose as we left the auditorium to return to the anteroom for another closed session.

The dean asked each of us whether our questions had been answered satisfactorily and if we recommended that the candidate be awarded her degree of doctor. Each of us could have said simply yes or no, but being academics of course we had to comment. But at the end of all the talking it was unanimous that the candidate should receive the degree. At that point, the actual diploma was brought out, and her promoter, Prof. Huysman, signed it. 

Then, Sarah was called into the room with her assistants who took their seats at the far end of the table from the Dean. The dean told her that she had defended herself satisfactorily and was being awarded the doctoral degree. At that point the diploma was handed to her for signature as well. But it was not over yet. The diploma was returned and enclosed in a tube, and once again the Beadle led us to the main hall where the diploma could be presented. 

Everyone rose, we sat, and Dr. Alex Schouten made a proclamation describing Sarah's accomplishments and his appreciation for the process they underwent as they had worked together on the dissertation. He himself was so excited that the switch between English and Dutch somewhat accidentally. The diploma was awarded, and there was great jubilation.

Afterwards, we walked to the university’s botanical garden where a lovely reception was held. Friends, family, the committee, and other well-wishers enjoyed food and champagne to celebrate together.

After a time I left with colleagues from the business school for a dinner out where we got to reflect on the day, discuss research, and get to know each other better. Afterwards, in the rain, I returned by subway to Centraal Station and Geldersekade having had a fulfilling and enjoyable day at the VU. 

All things considered, this is a great way to conduct a dissertation defense, especially if you are a committee member and not the candidate.