Chapter 40 — Presentation and viva
Lesson map
Lesson 40 published. Map, example, EX118.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["40.1 Preparing"]
N2["40.2 The viva"]
N3["40.3 Feedback"]
N4["40.4 Looking back"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX118"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["40.1 Preparing"]
N2["40.2 The viva"]
N3["40.3 Feedback"]
N4["40.4 Looking back"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX118"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[40.1 Preparing]
|
v
[40.2 The viva]
|
v
[40.3 Feedback]
|
v
[40.4 Looking back]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX118]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) present a dissertation; (2) answer examiners' questions; (3) reflect on the degree.
40.1 Preparing
Amara prepares a fifteen-minute presentation of her dissertation: problem, question, design, findings, limits and recommendations. She practises with classmates, who ask challenging questions. She prepares short answers to likely questions, such as why she used synthetic data and how Harbourline could run a real evaluation. She keeps slides simple, with one message each, and a chart showing both groups' rates before and after champions were introduced. She rehearses until the talk fits comfortably in the time allowed, leaving room for an unexpected question and a short pause before her conclusion.
40.2 The viva
Examiners ask why a co-operative should trust results based on synthetic data. Amara explains that the study shows the design can detect an effect of a given size, and recommends a staged real evaluation. An examiner asks whether champions might simply report fewer problems rather than reduce them. Amara agrees this is possible with manual reporting and explains that her design uses automated rules applied equally to all stores, which reduces that risk. The examiners accept this answer and move on to her recommendations.
40.3 Feedback
The examiners praise her clear limitations and practical recommendations. They suggest she could have explored effects on different types of invalid entries, such as codes versus prices. Amara accepts the suggestion and notes it as future work. She passes with a strong mark. Dr. Lindqvist tells her that the ability to explain limits confidently, without becoming defensive, will serve her well in professional governance roles where uncertainty is common. Amara thanks the examiners and records their suggestions in her journal for future work.
40.4 Looking back
Amara reflects on four years: from learning what data are to designing governance, running checks, writing policies and completing research. She values most the habit of asking who decides, what the evidence shows and who might be affected. She plans to join Harbourline's data team as a steward. The next course in this area turns to privacy and data protection, where governed data meet the rights of the people they describe. She thanks Dr. Lindqvist and her classmates in the acknowledgements of her dissertation.
Worked example
Amara presents simply, answers questions on synthetic data and reporting bias, accepts feedback on entry types and reflects on four years of growth before joining Harbourline as a steward.
Synthetic case. The viva is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Defensive answers to valid questions weaken a strong study.
Exercises
- EX118 — Reporting bias answer. How did Amara address reporting bias? Rubric: 3 = automated rules applied equally to all stores;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX119 — Examiner suggestion. What did examiners suggest? Rubric: 3 = explore effects on different invalid entry types;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX120 — Next role. What role will Amara take? Rubric: 3 = steward in Harbourline's data team;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = other;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 40 (chapter 40 of 40)
← Chapter 39 · Course chapter index · Next course via chapter index →
The chapter index leads to the next course in the study path.