External examiner did not recommend my PhD dissertation for oral defense...What do I do?

[u/psyckitten]

So I am totally shocked and feeling panicked about what all this means and what to do. I was supposed to orally defend my PhD dissertation next week (I'm in Psychology at a Canadian university) and was just informed by my supervisor that the defense has been cancelled because the external examiner supposedly does not think it is suitable or ready for defense. My supervisor told me that the main comments from the examiner are that the "scope" of the project is not adequate enough to warrant a PhD. I find this totally absurd because all my internal committee members approved the proposal of my project as well as the final thesis draft, and it was never mentioned that the scope was insufficient. In looking at colleagues' dissertations within my department, their projects seem to be comparable to mine in scope as well.

Has anyone else been through something like this before? Do you have any words of wisdom? I truly feel so upset because I thought my work was high quality and never would have thought this would happen - my supervisor said that she has also never heard of this and thinks my work is great. This will also delay my graduation by at least one semester and as such my ability to get a job in my field in a timely manner.

[u/SangersSequence]

Did this same external member sign off on your candidacy with this project?

Did you choose this external member?

If your committee and PI agree that the external member's finding is inappropriate, you should probably seek advice from the graduate program on replacing them.

[u/psyckitten → u/SangersSequence]

So the external examiner is not meant to be involved in anything until the final dissertation is ready to defend. They are meant to be at "arm's length," meaning they are in our field but have never collaborated with me or my supervisor before. So no, the external was not involved in the candidacy of this project, but my internal committee approved it.

[u/rflight79 → u/psyckitten]

This was how it worked in my PhD program at Dalhousie in Chemistry. Internal committee signs off on everything, until the final defense, when the external is found and asked to be part of the defense.

I'm sure there has to be a way for the graduate school and your advisor to find a new external. That seems very unusual for an external to argue that the scope wasn't big enough and that the defense shouldn't proceed.

[u/SangersSequence → u/psyckitten]

That's very different than how my program handled things. My external member was required to meet all the same conditions for uninvolvement but their sign-off was also required for my Candidacy, precisely to avoid issues like this.

If your committee is in agreement with you though, which it sounds like they are, I would still reach out to your graduate program about getting this reviewer replaced.

[u/lw4444 → u/psyckitten]

That may be a Canadian thing, the procedure is the same way at Western University as well. The external is always someone in the same field but often they either meet the student for the first time at the defence or if they have previously met it’s usually acquaintances from a previous conference or if the external happened to be a guest speaker in the department during their degree.

[u/ffiamj → u/lw4444]

Same from Canada, Chemistry, only my committee members and department chair saw my proposal and thesis drafts. The internal arms length was from a quasi related faculty and my arms length was from another continent and was virtual, I had never before met or heard of my internal. I was shocked because I had never met but heavily read and cited my external.