Advice concerning the Public Presentation of Dissertation Projects

(for Doctoral Students in Philosophy)

Students and supervisors have frequently asked for a list of criteria based upon
which the dissertation advisory committee (=DAC) evaluates dissertation projects
in the context of the faculty-wide public presentations (=FPPs). With this
document the director of graduate studies seeks to answer this request and thereby
make the evaluation process more transparent for all parties concerned.

Putting together such catalogue is not easy: different philosophical traditions differ,
to some extent, in how they organise their research; and every dimension within
the catalogue has to be taken as a scale. That is, a weakness in one dimension can
sometimes be compensates by a strength in another. More generally, the overall
evaluation is almost never based algorithmically on evaluations of individual
aspects; the overall evaluation usually has a holistic quality. It also needs to be
remembered that the membership of the DAC changes over time, and that new
members sometimes introduce new criteria. The following suggestions should be
read in this light. They concern the project summary, the oral presentation and the
question-and-answer session with the DAC.

(1) Thesis, Question, Theme

It is important that your project summary states clearly what you are trying to do.
You can meet this desideratum in various ways:

(a) You might formulate one or more theses that in your work you will try to defend
or challenge.

(b) You might also characterise your project by listing one or more questions that
you aim to answer.

(c) Or, you might, more generally, sketch the theme you are interested in. If you opt
for (c), then you should be able to explain why, in your case, it is impossible to
formulate theses or research questions.

(2) Knowledge of Relevant Literature and other Relevant Objects

You have to be able to convince the DAC that you are familiar with relevant primary
and secondary literature and the current state of research. You should also be
familiar with other relevant objects (e.g. works of art, languages, instruments ...).
Obviously, no-one expects you -- after just one year of work on your topic -- to have
read all of the relevant literature. However, you should be able to mention and
discuss at least the most central previous contributions.

(3) Lacuna in Previous Research

Building upon (1) and (2) you should explain which lacuna in previous research you
seek to close in your work. It is important to discuss this issue with your supervisor.
After all, not every lacuna is worth addressing, and not every lacuna can be closed
with three years of work.

(4) Time Frame

Make sure that it is possible to complete your dissertation project within the
expected time frame (of about three years). Your project summary should
distinguish the different steps of your doctoral work. Different phases -- e.g.
collecting data, studying manuscripts, gaining familiarity with the secondary
literature, working on various chapters, etc. -- should be separated, and each should
be given a realistic time budget.

(5) Method and Interdisciplinarity

In the special sciences, a presentation of the methods is usually at the heart of a

project summary. In philosophy, an explicit discussion of methods is only rarely
called for. Nevertheless, there are cases where philosophical project summaries had
better address methodological issues. These are especially important when the
project is interdisciplinary. Members of the DAC might want to know, for example,
how the methods of the different disciplines involved are to be combined, and
whether they fit together at all. (Of course this is also an issue concerning the
concepts and theories of the various disciplines involved.)

(6) Coherence

Make sure that your thoughts and claims, concepts and authors discussed fit
together. (This is no must -- sometimes incoherence might be intended and
philosophically productive and provocative. But if you go down this route then you
need to be able to defend the need for this procedure in your case case.)

(7) Clarity of Presentation

Every philosophical work stands within a specific philosophical tradition that

outsiders might not immediately understand. At the same time, there also exists
something like a philosophical public sphere, defined by common concepts,
questions and ideas that make possible an understanding across tradition borders.
(Sometimes this might demand a great effort.) Your project summary should be
written for this philosophical public sphere, it should be clear and transparent. You
should either avoid or explain the specific terminology of your tradition.

(8) Supervision

The success of your dissertation project depends crucially on your finding suitable
supervisors. Make sure that your supervisors are already familiar with your area of

research or that they are willing to familiarize themselves with this area in step with
the progress of your work. It is important that your supervisors are familiar with the
requirements of the new doctoral programme at the University of Vienna and that
they are research-active on an international level. After all, it is their task to help
you develop this very competence.

(9) Information about Yourself

You might want to check whether you can document your competence vis--vis
your project with reference to your biography. Maybe you have won prizes, maybe
you have published related work, maybe you have written your Bachelor-, Masteror Diploma Thesis on a relevant topic. Such information might be helpful to the DAC
in considering your research profile. All this is not to rule out that you might take on
an altogether new topic.

(10) Oral Presentation of your Project

You have ten minutes for the oral presentation of your project to the DAC.
Remember that the members of the DAC have already read your written project
summary. You should therefore concentrate on clearly summarizing the main
points. You might want to use PowerPoint or hand-outs.
We recommend that you try out your oral presentation in front of colleagues or
friends. (You find some additional advice on talks more generally here:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/martin.kusch/index.html -- please scroll down to the
bottom of the page.) It is also a good idea to come to other FPPs so that you
become familiar with the course and style of these events.

(11) Questions by Members of the DAC

After your oral presentation, members of the DAC will ask you (critical) questions
about your project. The purpose is to safeguard that you really do have an exciting

and promising dissertation project. This question-and-answer session is challenging

since you have to respond to considerations coming from people who do not have a
close involvement with your research area. At the same time, you have a chance to
benefit from a wide spectrum of responses.

(12) Decision by the Director of Graduate Studies

The DAC advises the director of graduate studies on how to evaluate the
dissertation project. Three outcomes are possible:

(a) The project is approved.

(b) The project has to be improved in some of its aspects, and it has to be presented
a second time.
(c) The project is rejected.

Ad (b): The director of graduate studies will send you a list of suggested
improvements, and will meet you in person to talk about them. That the project is
rejected, or that it has to be presented again, does not involve a definite judgement
on your suitability for philosophical research.

Martin Kusch
DSPL 43
March 23rd, 2013