So I’ve been doing an endless part time mixed methods PhD in a STEM subject area
whilst progressing through the project (employed by the uni but no time allocation for study given) I became increasingly aware that my supervisors were actually clueless about qualitative methods (and a few other aspects of the study design they had suggested)
prior to submission the thesis was read by 4 separate supervisors (2 mine and 2 colleagues) all thought it had some issues but was essentially fine.
the examiners ripped it to shreds because of significant methodological errors based on my supervisors advice. They wanted to award me an MPhil but I think swayed towards R&R mostly cos it’s embarrassing for the uni to fail a staff member.
Since then, I’ve re-analysed two major data sets using different methodology and done an additional study and resubmitted. I’ve also published 3 papers (with a 4th accepted).
Viva is soon
i’ve noticed having gone through it again that there are a few errors, mostly typographical and not major but one is the insertion of a table from the previous iteration of the thesis and it just shouldn’t be there. It’s a pretty major thing to overlook (thesis was reread twice by my two useless supervisors) and obviously my fault (I have ADD so found the whole thesis-writing process unbearable especially part time).
not sure if it helps but the most recently accepted paper is a condensed version of this data chapter (without the random table insertion) so in a sense I’ve already corrected it.
I can only pass the re-viva if they make a minor errors recommendation.
there are a few other things worrying me about the thesis - it’s not perfect (also I now work for a different institution so I don’t think they’ll mind failing me now!)
I guess what I’m asking is where is the line between major and minor errors in a thesis?
Also is there anything I can do in the viva to nudge the examiners towards minor corrections (eg reassurance, an action plan for corrections etc)?
TL:DR
noted thesis errors and it’s a proper pass/fail situation - how can I constructively reassure examiners?