Mixed messages in criticisms in Iranian PhD dissertation defenses

Abstract

Taking up the role of examiner in PhD dissertation defense sessions involves dealing with two contradictory desires; namely, effective delivery of criticisms and maintaining a positive interpersonal relationship with the recipients of those criticisms. This study explores the discourse strategies examiners use to express the speech act of criticism in the context of Iranian dissertation defense sessions in English for Academic Purposes. The data come from simplified transcriptions of twelve video-recorded sessions of PhD dissertation defense sessions (DDs) from 63 to 123 minutes long. The examiners’ criticisms, which are delivered in the Question-Answer (Q-A) part of defense sessions, are selected for analysis. Consulting taxonomies of criticisms provided by previous studies as the point of departure, the study also provides a taxonomy of criticisms which best fits its purpose. The identified 120 acts are classified into 10 strategy types. The analyses reveal a ‘mixed message’ in criticism acts in that they ambivalently include elements of negativity and positivity. Most criticisms include a number of mitigating strategies as well as aggravating strategies. In addition, they include strategies which ambivalently mitigate and aggravate. It is therefore argued that examiners ambivalently establish relational connection with and separation from the candidates (and their supervisors) through criticisms.

How do celebrities respond to criticism in media interviews? The case of an Egyptian TV show

“…It is worth noting that a number of researchers have realized the influential role genre and institutionalized discourse play in the realization of speech acts. Reference can be made to earlier studies on tutorials (e.g., Hiraga et al, 2003;Hiraga & Turner, 1996) and MA/PhD vivas (e.g., Don & Izadi, 2013;Izadi, 2013Izadi, , 2014.…”

“…The use of the viva as a context proved useful as "it demonstrates how criticism is accomplished in a speech event in which it is not only a common discourse function but also a sanctionable (if highly constrained) form of behavior" (Don & Izadi, 2013, p. 230). For instance, Don and Izadi (2013) and Izadi (2013Izadi ( , 2014Izadi ( , 2017 revealed that vivas involve a combination of pre-allocated as well as negotiated turns. It was also observed that examiners' criticisms generally start smoothly, but the following criticism responses by MA/PhD candidates, often through defending their theses and clarifying aspects of their work, influence the quality of the subsequent turns.…”

On the moral grounds of professional argumentative talk: English-mediated talk in Iranian PhD dissertation defences

“…For this study, I have chosen two anomalous cases: The first deals with a situation where a supervisor breaches the norms of supervision by aligning with an examiner in attacking the candidate resulting in the co-supervisor's intervention to clash with the supervisor. This interaction has previously been analysed in terms of face (Izadi, 2017a) and has been shown to represent a great deal of relational separation (Arundale, 2010(Arundale, , 2020 between the co-supervisor, the examiner and the supervisor, leading to unconventionally adversarial confrontation. The second represents a case of an examiner arguing with another examiner to defend the candidate, again, an unconventional practice in DDs.…”

“…There is a promising line of research on dissertation defences, both universally and in the Iranian culture. Iranian defence sessions have been investigated in terms of a variety of topics, including speech acts (Izadi, 2013a(Izadi, , 2013b(Izadi, , 2018b, and the relational accounts of face and politeness (Don and Izadi, 2011Izadi, , 2013Izadi, 2017aIzadi, , 2017b. Izadi (2018b) observes that talk in dissertation defences in general and criticism-response exchanges in particular feature an equilibrium between the effective delivery of messages (criticisms and disagreeing responses) and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships through paying respect, modulating negative acts, etc.…”

“…(Blair, 2011), but they are more or less tolerated as they are a raison d'etre of such professional practices, and therefore, are considered as 'normative' practices within their relevant institutional settings. In academia, while argumentation is a common practice for academics to register and establish their different and even opposite epistemic statuses, and is featured in a variety of professional practices such as academic writing (Tannen, 2002) and peer reviewing, dissertation defences (Izadi, 2013a(Izadi, , 2013b(Izadi, , 2017a(Izadi, , 2017b, departmental meetings (Izadi, 2016) and conferences, conflictive talk is a non-normative practice, with serious negative consequences for interpersonal relationships; a practice that goes beyond the limits of normativity and the tacitly agreedupon expectations of the institution. While argumentation is essentially based on disagreements, not every disagreement creates a conflict in the professional discourse.…”