thankfully the viva was like a good supervision session rather than a critical demolition. if only i had actually pressed the record button on the dictaphone app like i thought i had. possibly the best insight came right at the end, almost as an afterthought from my drama supervisor: its really all about attention.

in the written feedback:

The committee were impressed by the amount of work done and the quality of the literature review. This draws together some very interesting material and combines it well and shows good critical powers.

yay! ah - but these things always seem to have some kind of “subject to the usual corrections” clause. and, lo, mine does:

The committee requested that a revised submission should be made for a second review. No new reading is required, it is much more about refining the way the research issues are presented and giving a clear, coherent and tractable focus. There’s a lot of good work already done here but it would benefit from being sharpened. Specifically:

  1. Produce a new section that provides a clearer definition of the research questions and, in particular, a significant narrowing of the background concept of ‘liveness’ to a more conceptually and empirically tractable, and thus more focussed, issue (see below).
  2. Provide a new section that explains the methodological approach and, in particular how the initial system requirements / design will be motivated.
  3. Provide some discussion of how the work will link coherently - in terms of both key concepts and methodological strategies - between potentially diverse field environments.