phd defence cbs

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• How to Request for Journal Publishing Charge (APC) Discount or Waiver?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

University of Rochester

Search Rochester.edu

Popular Searches

Resources for

• Prospective students
• Current students
• Faculty and staff

Arts, Sciences & Engineering

Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs

• PhD Defense

Preparing for a PhD Defense

Table of contents, preparing to start, nominate a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense, selecting a defense date, international students and work visas, registration categories for defense, dissertation writing and guidelines, preparing your dissertation for defense, registering your dissertation for the final oral exam, know the rituals.

• Use PowerPoint

Public Lecture

Dress Professionally

Items to Bring to the Defense

The Closed Examination

Address Questions with Confidence

Student Status

Final corrected copies of the dissertation, publishing your final dissertation, binding your final dissertation, before defense.

Before you can start your thesis you must:

• Complete all courses, exams, and research requirements
• Meet with your advisory committee to ensure that everyone agrees that the work is ready to defend
• Decide on a date for the defense
• Inform your graduate administrator that you have started the process to prepare for your defense

A chair is appointed for each PhD oral defense to monitor and promote fairness and rigor in the conduct of the defense. To help eliminate pre-established judgments on the candidate’s work, the chair should be from a different program/department than the student. For more information about chair responsibilities, read the instructions for the chair .

You must identify a faculty member to serve as chair for your defense. The chair must be:

• A current full-time faculty member at assistant professor rank or higher
• Outside the department offering the degree program, or outside your advisor's department (interdisciplinary degree programs only)
• Someone who has not had prior involvement in your research

The selection of the chair is subject to the approval of the department/program, th Arts, Sciences and Engineering dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the University dean of graduate studies.

The chair must be physically present during the entire defense, including the public oral presentation (if applicable) and the questioning session. The chair is welcome to read and comment on the dissertation and/or the defense presentation, but this is not required. The chair does not need to be an expert in your research area.

It is your responsibility to get a copy of the final dissertation to the chair at least one week prior to the defense.

You should begin scheduling the actual defense date three months in advance to ensure that your advisor, committee members, and chair are able to be present and that rooms are available on the date and time selected.  

Defenses can be held on any day the University’s Graduate Studies Office is open (not weekends, evenings, holidays, or the days between Christmas and New Year’s). Check the  academic calendar  for important dates and deadlines.

Use the  PhD calendar  to determine the deadline dates for getting your paperwork to the Office of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs and department committee.

When all committee members and your chair agree to a specific date and time for the defense, inform your graduate administrator as soon as you possibly can, but no later than six weeks prior to your defense date . Your graduate administrator will advise you of any program-specific requirements for the defense as well as work with you to prepare for your thesis defense. They will also help you determine who will schedule the room for your thesis defense.

You should provide your committee members at least two weeks to read and comment on your dissertation before the date you need to register your dissertation.

Participating Via Video Conferencing

While you, your advisor, and the chair must all be physically present in the room for the defense, other committee members are allowed to participate in the defense remotely via Skype or other video conferencing technology so long as all committee members agree to the arrangement. This must also be approved by the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs and the University dean of graduate studies before the dissertation is registered for defense.

Someone other than you and your committee must handle the IT setup and be on standby for any problems. If anyone involved finds that remote participation is interfering with the defense, he or she can request that the defense be rescheduled.

We strongly recommend that international students meet with an  International Services Office (ISO)  representative as soon as permission to start writing is granted. The ISO will provide information on visa options, documentation, and timelines for applying for a visa for employment in the United States.

You will register for one of the following categories while preparing your defense:

• 999: Dissertation —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is in residence as a full-time student
• 995 : Continuation of Enrollment —Indicates the PhD student has completed all of the requirements for the degree except the dissertation and is not in residence as a full-time student

See the registration page for more information about these categories.

The Preparing Your Doctoral Dissertation manual is a great resource to help you bring your dissertation up to the required standard of organization, appearance, and format for the University of Rochester. Before preparing the defense copy of your dissertation, check the contents of the manual carefully to help avoid mistakes that can be time-consuming and costly to correct.

Before beginning your dissertation, you should consult with your advisor for your department or program’s preferred style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago).

Including material produced by other authors in your dissertation can serve a legitimate research purpose, but you want to avoid copyright infringement in the process. For detailed instructions on avoiding copyright infringement, please see ProQuest’s  Copyright Guide .

The University requires that you provide copies of the dissertation to your committee members and exam chair. You should check with your committee members to see if they prefer printed or electronic copies (or both). Printed copies do not need to be printed on heavyweight, expensive paper unless there is the need to do so for figures and images. 

Printing and binding a dissertation can be expensive. You can use the Copy Center or FedEx Office to print and bind your dissertation.

In order to register your dissertation, you or your graduate administrator will need to create a record on the Graduate Studies PhD Completion website . This record will include:

• Degree information
• Past degrees
• Contact information
• The defense version of your dissertation as a PDF
• Other relevant documents

The version of your dissertation attached to your online record is considered the registration copy.

When your PhD completion record is finalized, committee members will receive emails with links to access your record and approve your dissertation to progress to defense. You’ll need to provide copies of the dissertation identical to the registration copy to all members of your committee, including the chair, at least two weeks before the record is finalized. Everyone but the chair is required to comment or sign off on the dissertation before it is submitted.

There may be deadlines for registering your dissertation specific to your program. Consult with your graduate administrator to ascertain those deadlines and follow them carefully.

After all committee members have provided their approval, your thesis will be reviewed by your faculty director/department chair, the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, and the office of the University dean of graduate studies. When all of these officials have approved your committee and dissertation for defense, your dissertation is considered registered. You will be able to track these approvals in your online record and will receive a confirmation email when approvals are complete.

The GEPA Office and the AS&E dean of graduate education and postdoctoral affairs, as well as the University Graduate Studies Office, may make corrections to the PDF of your dissertation. This annotated copy of your dissertation, along with the original version, will be stored in the PhD completion website. You are not allow to distribute updated versions of your dissertation prior to the defense, but be sure to incorporate any corrections before uploading your final dissertation to ProQuest®. 

After the defense, if the committee has required major revisions to be approved by one or more of its members, it is your responsibility to provide them with the corrected final version for their approval.  They will be asked to submit written confirmation of that approval to the University Graduate Studies Office. Failure to do so could delay conferral of your degree.

After the defense, you will receive additional instructions by email for completion of all PhD degree requirements.

It is important to walk into the defense knowing that your committee wants you to pass. Even if criticism is harsh, it is meant to be constructive. The defense is not solely an opportunity for the committee to compliment and congratulate you for the work you have done. It is also meant to challenge you and force you to consider tough questions.

The Defense

The best way to prepare for your defense is to regularly attend the defenses of your colleagues throughout your graduate program, not just several weeks prior to your own defense.

You can also talk to people in your department who already defended to find out what their defenses were like. You should also speak with your advisor to get a sense of his/her specific expectations of a defense.

Guidelines for Presentations

Use PowerPoint or Other Software to Create Slides

You should prepare a presentation of the research that comprises the thesis. Your slides should encapsulate the work and focus on its most salient contributions. In preparing, ask yourself these questions: “What do I want people to know about my thesis? What is the most important information that I can present and talk about?”

Here are some basic tips:

• Use text large enough to be read by the audience (especially text from figures)
• Ensure graphics and tables are clear
• Don’t clutter your slides—if necessary, have things come up on mouse clicks
• Use spell check and proofread your slides
• Practice your presentation with your peers
• Work on pronunciation, if required
• Time your presentation to ensure it will fit the allotted time while allowing time for questions

If your defense includes a public lecture, we recommended that you do a trial run a day or two before in the room that has been booked for your lecture. This will allow you to familiarize yourself with the space and the equipment and to address any problems that arise during the trial run. 

Plan your public lecture to allow enough time for questions. Present enough information so that the audience understands what you did, why you did it, what the implications are, and what your suggestions are for future research.

Friends and family are welcome to attend your public lecture. Faculty and students in the audience are given the opportunity to ask questions.

Plan to dress professionally for the defense in the same way you would if presenting a paper at a conference or for a job interview. You will be standing for a long time on the day of your defense. You might want to keep this in mind when selecting the shoes you will wear for your defense.

Essentials for your public lecture include:

• Your presentation
• A laser pointer
• A copy of your dissertation
• A pen or pencil
• A bottle of water 

You will be asked to leave the room while your committee reviews your program of study, and decides whether:

• The thesis is acceptable/not acceptable
• Whether members will ask sequential questions or whether each member will be allotted a specific time period for questioning

The person to start the questioning is designated. You will be called back into the examining room and questioning will begin. After all questions have been addressed, you will be asked to leave the room while your committee decides the outcome of the exam. You will be asked to return to the room to be informed of the outcome by the chair of your exam committee.

• Listen  to the entire question no matter how long it takes the faculty member or student to ask it (take notes if necessary).
• Pause and think  about the question before answering.
• Rephrase  the question.
• Answer  the question to the best of your ability; if you do not know the answer, remain calm and say so in a professional way.
• Remember  that no one will know the ins and outs of the thesis and your research materials as well as you.  You  are the foremost expert in the thesis topic and  YOU know the research involved. Be positive!

Possible outcomes include:

• Acceptable with minor or no revisions (no further approval required)
• Acceptable with major revisions in content or format (in this case, one or more committee members must be responsible for overseeing and approving the major revisions before the final copies are submitted)
• Not acceptable

After the Defense

You can submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation as soon as you address any remaining comments that were brought up during the defense or noted in the registration copy of your dissertation, which will be returned to you usually within a few days before or after the defense. You can take up to one semester following the defense to address any comments, during which you can remain a full-time student. Your degree conferral date will depend on when you submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation.

The day after your defense, you will receive an email from the University dean of graduate studies that provides instructions on how to:

• Submit the final corrected copies of your dissertation through ProQuest
• Provide authorization for the release of your dissertation through UR Research
• Complete a mandatory online exit survey
• Verify to the University dean of graduate studies’ office that the dissertation has been submitted

The University of Rochester requires all doctoral candidates to deposit their dissertations for publication with ProQuest Dissertation Publishing and with the University libraries. Hard copies are not required. The library receives an electronic copy of the dissertation from ProQuest, but students must give the University permission to obtain it.

For questions regarding publishing through ProQuest, contact Author Relations at [email protected] or (800) 521-0600 ext. 77020.

Check with your graduate administrator to see if your department wants a bound copy of your dissertation, and, if so, how the cost of binding is covered.

If you want a bound copy for yourself or your family, you can purchase one through ProQuest .

Preparing for your PhD thesis defence

As you start thinking about the end stages of your PhD, it’s important to understand the processes and timelines related to the thesis defence so that your degree completion is not delayed. Even if your thesis defence seems far away, there are several planning considerations you can consider early on to help the end stages of your PhD go smoothly.

On this page you will find videos, tools, and information about what the PhD thesis defence is , timelines for the PhD thesis defence , and tips for a successful PhD thesis defence .

All PhD students should also ensure that they read the PhD thesis examination regulations and review the thesis preparation guidelines prior to their oral defence. If your thesis defence will be conducted remotely, you should also review the process for a remote thesis defence .

What is the PhD defence?

Understanding the purpose, processes and possible outcomes of the thesis defence can help you feel more prepared for the defence itself. In this video, you’ll learn about what the defence is, who’s there, what happens, and the deliberation and range of possible outcomes.

Transcript - Demystifying the thesis defence at University of Waterloo (PDF)

You may wish to learn more about some of the topics discussed in this video. Here are some helpful links to learn more:

Examination committee members (including the external examiner): Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on the  PhD thesis examining committee for more information about the committee members, including information about the external examiner and conflicts of interest.

• Closed thesis defences and non-disclosure agreements: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on guidelines for thesis examination without public disclosure for more information about closed thesis examinations.
• Thesis defence decisions and outcomes: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on  decisions for additional information about decisions and outcomes.
• Thesis submission: Visit the thesis submission webpage for information about the thesis submission process, including approvals that must be obtained before submitting your thesis.
• UWSpace: Visit the Library’s UWSpace webpage for information about what UWSpace is and how to submit, or deposit, your thesis to UWSpace.

Timeline to defence

Early planning considerations.

Well before your defence date, there are several considerations to think about that can help make the end stages of your degree go smoothly and ensure your defence date and degree completion are not delayed:

• Being aware of formatting requirements will save you time on revisions later on – the last thing you want to be doing before submitting your thesis to UWSpace is updating page numbers or your table of contents! Consider using the Microsoft Word or LaTeX thesis template produced by Information Systems & Technology. 
• The Dissertation Boot Camp can help you develop effective writing practices and strategies for completing your thesis, while the three-part Rock Your Thesis workshop series will provide practical guidance for planning, writing, revising, and submitting your thesis project. You can also book an individual appointment to do backwards planning with an advisor. They can help you utilize the planning tools most effectively, while providing hands-on guidance and feedback.  
• If you are using third-party content, including your own previously published work in your thesis, or seeking intellectual property protection (for yourself or another involved party), there may be implications for your thesis or defence. Learn more about copyright for your thesis , and email [email protected] for help with copyright questions related to your thesis.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, you may require approval from your entire committee, or just your supervisor. Ensure you talk with your supervisor and/or committee early on to confirm processes and timelines, so you’re not surprised later.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, your supervisor may select an external examiner themselves, or they may seek your input. Talk to your supervisor early on about this process, as in some faculties the external examiner may need to be vetted and approved as early as the term before you wish to defend. Remember that there are conflict of interest guidelines around the appointment of the external examiner , and the PhD candidate should not be in communication with the external examiner prior to the defence.
• A PhD thesis must be on display for a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the defence date. To accommodate, you may need to submit your thesis as early as 6-8 weeks prior to your defence. Review your faculty specific backwards planning tool for the thesis submission deadline in your faculty and learn more about the display period in the PhD thesis examination regulations.
• After your successful thesis defence, you will likely have some required revisions to your thesis. It’s important to understand revision timelines , especially if you’re hoping to become “degree complete” before a tuition refund or convocation deadline. Find tuition refund and convocation deadlines in the important dates calendar .
• Following your thesis defence, there are several steps to be taken before your final, approved thesis is accepted in UWSpace. Ensure that you’re aware of these thesis submission steps and timelines in advance.

Backwards planning tools

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs, in collaboration with the Faculties, have prepared faculty specific backwards planning tools to help PhD candidates map out the timelines related to their thesis defence and degree completion.

Select your faculty below to download a PDF copy of the backwards planning tool. We encourage you to discuss your ideal timelines with your supervisor(s) and your department graduate program co-ordinator.

• Faculty of Health backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Arts backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Engineering backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Environment backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Mathematics backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Science backwards planning tool (PDF)

Tips for success

The PhD thesis defence is the culmination of years of hard work! The tips outlined in this video, compiled from recent PhD graduates and experienced thesis defence chairs, cover tips for preparing for your defence, day-of logistics, and defending successfully.

Transcript - Your Thesis Defence: Tips for Success (PDF)

Will your PhD thesis defence be held remotely? We’ve compiled additional tips for success specifically related to the remote defence.

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Graduate School of Health and Medical Sciences

• Thesis and defence

Defence and certificate

As a PhD student you can choose between three different types of oral PhD defences:

• A physical defence
• A fully digital PhD defence with a link open to the public
• A digital PhD defence with partly physical presence and a link open to the public

For all three types of defence, the PhD student must fill in the form " Information regarding the PhD defence and the PhD certificate " at least 3 weeks before the defence.

The principal supervisor is responsible for planning the defence, including booking a venue or assisting with setting up a digital meeting room if relevant.

For venues at Panum please contact [email protected]  

Information applicable to all types of oral defences

For all types of oral defences these rules apply:

• The PhD student has up to 45 minutes to present the main findings of the PhD project. Afterwards the assessment committee examines the PhD student and facilitates an academic discussion based on the thesis and the PhD student's presentation.
• At the end of the defence, the audience is given the opportunity to ask questions.
• The defence should not take more than three hours in total, including all or any break(s).
• The PhD defence must always be publicly available
• The defence normally takes place in English. In order for the defence to be conducted in Danish, all members of the assessment committee must agree to this. In addition, it should be clarified whether anyone in the audience would prefer the defence to be held in English.
• Supervisors have no formal role during the oral defence. However, they should attend the event in order to support the PhD student and celebrate his or her achievements.

Physical PhD defence

Digital defence with partly physical presence, digital defence, phd certificate and documentation.

The PhD degree is awarded by The Academic Council after an obligatory consultation procedure.

A few weeks after the defence, you will receive an e-mail from the Graduate School confirming that the Academic Council has awarded you the PhD degree. This e-mail serves as temporary documentation of your degree.

You will receive your final PhD certificate approximately 1–2 months after a successful defence.

Social arrangements in connection with the PhD defence

The Graduate School encourages the common praxis of inviting the assessment committee and the supervisors out for a dinner or lunch. The arrangements must be made in accordance with the university’s rules regarding entertainment expenses. This is usually the responsibility of the principal supervisor.

Here are the guidelines:

• The Graduate School reimburses the costs for one lunch or dinner for the assessment committee, the principal supervisor and primary co-supervisor (this does not include the PhD student).
• If you wish to apply for a reimbursement, please make sure to get a receipt for the expenses and email the receipt to the Graduate School along with a list of participants.
• The Graduate School does not reimburse a reception.

The work of the assessment committee

Illustration: the final stages of the phd.

Department of Organization

• Publications
• Degree Programmes

Ny ErhvervsPhD i den organisatoriske håndtering af krydspres på førstelinjeledere i produktionsmiljøer

Globalization: time to go network, blog: compliance, evasiveness, barter and investment – why women do more academic service work.

See all news

Imagine Anniversary Conference

See all events

Barbara Czarniawska in memoriam

It is with sadness that we write these words. An eminent organizational scholar and remarkable person is no longer among us. Senior Professor of Management Studies at Gothenburg School of Business, Economics and Law, Barbara Czarniawska, passed away on April 7, 2024.

Barbara was a long-standing friend of the IOA – Department of Organization and was appointed as an Honorary Professor at Copenhagen Business School in 2006. Her academic career spanned geographical as well as disciplinary boundaries, and her work was ground-breaking, theoretically, methodologically, and intellectually.

Barbara visited IOA multiple times to give lectures, and PhD courses, and interact with colleagues. She encouraged us to move ideas, data, and analyses forward towards a more sophisticated understanding of organizations. Barbara taught us to understand how organizations can always be looked at differently but that we should never lose sight of the importance of being selective and nuanced in our choice of theoretical lenses. Junior and senior faculty of IOA have changed and grown by meeting Barbara and from being provoked and inspired by her penetrating analyses and original reflections.

Barbara was a pathbreaker who greatly increased the visibility of Scandinavian organization research internationally. She was a lightning example of a critical, creative, and qualitative approach to the study of organizations. We will miss her.

Watch CBS News

Nicolae Miu takes stand in his defense on day 7 of Apple River stabbing trial

By Anthony Bettin , WCCO Staff

Updated on: April 9, 2024 / 6:21 PM CDT / CBS Minnesota

UPDATE (11:15 a.m. Thursday)  — Nicolae Miu has been found guilty of multiple criminal charges, including homicide, in the 2022 Apple River stabbings in Wisconsin.  Read the updated story here.

HUDSON, Wis. —  Nicolae Miu  testified in his defense after the prosecution rested its case in the Apple River stabbing trial Tuesday.

Miu, 54, stabbed five people on the river, killing 17-year-old Isaac Schuman and injuring four others. The victims ranged in age from 17 to 24 and were from Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The state seeks to prove Miu was the aggressor that day, while the defense is arguing he stabbed the five people in self-defense.

Miu is charged with first-degree intentional homicide in Schuman's death and attempted first-degree intentional homicide in the stabbings of Ryhley Mattison, A.J. Martin, Dante Carlson and Tony Carlson. He  pleaded not guilty  to all charges in September 2022.   

WCCO will have live coverage throughout the trial which you can watch via the video player above,  CBS News Minnesota ,  Pluto TV  or the  CBS News app  on your phone or connected TV.

Medical examiner testifies

Victor Froloff, the assistant medical examiner for Ramsey County, was the first witness on the stand Tuesday.

The prosecution began by running through Froloff's credentials, including his 19 years in his current role and 39 overall years in the medical field.

Froloff performed the autopsy on Schuman.

Froloff said he noted a sharp force injury to Schuman's left chest during his external examination. When he examined Schuman internally, he reclassified it as a stab wound, saying that means "the depth of the wound exceeds the length of the wound on the skin."

The stab wound injured Schuman's ribs, left lung and heart, according to Froloff.

The prosecution then went through photographs taken during the autopsy. These photos were not shown in court, but paper copies were given to the witness and the jury.

While reviewing the photographs, Froloff noted two of Schuman's ribs were "transected" when a "weapon went through his ribcage."

Froloff said he performed a toxicology report, the results of which showed Schuman's blood alcohol content was 0.219. He found "no other substances or drugs" in Schuman's system.

Froloff determined the cause of Schuman's death was a stab wound to the left chest and his manner of death was homicide.

The defense asked Froloff to clarify that "homicide," in this instance, is not a legal term, to which he agreed. Miu's attorneys also noted that Schuman's BAC was more than twice the legal limit for operating a vehicle in Wisconsin.

A long line of questioning sought to explore the causes for the depth of Schuman's wound, including whether he was moving toward or falling into the weapon. While Froloff said he "never observed this incident" and there were "endless possibilities" about the causes, he did agree that the possibilities laid out by the defense were reasonable.

Brandie Hart testifies

Brandie Hart, a special services lieutenant with the St. Croix County Sheriff's Office, was next on the stand.

Hart interviewed Nicolae Miu and his then-wife after the stabbings.

The prosecution is playing a video recording of her interview with Miu.

In the video, after being read his Miranda rights, Miu began recounting the day to Hart. He repeatedly claimed self-defense, saying another group called him a "child molester." 

"They started calling me names, they got off of their tubes, they came at me," Miu said.

He said he was "so fearful" and "went into self-defense mode."

Miu said two people pulled knives on him, and he took one of the knives.

"I poked him with his own hand and then I took it from his hand," Miu said. "I took the knife from one of the kids."

He also said he was "drinking beer all day." 

"Of course, I had a lot of alcohol, who doesn't?" he said. He also said the other group — Schuman's group — was "too drunk."

Miu consented to a DNA sample during the interview, which Hart took at the end of the interview.

At one point during the interview, Hart told Miu four people went to the hospital and one person died.

"Oh no," Miu said. "Was that because they fought each other?"

He later said: "Now my whole life is down the tubes."

Miu asked Hart if they found the knives, to which she said she doesn't know.

RELATED: Video of Nicolae Miu's police interview shown during Apple River stabbing trial: "I feared for my life"

"I'm glad I actually took that kid's knife. He would've stabbed me. He was not there to scare me, he was there to harm me," Miu said. "At least I'm here. But I'm sorry for what — how it ended up."

The defense's cross examination focused on Miu's mindset during the interview — whether he was under stress and if he was given an opportunity to calm down before the interview. Miu's attorneys also highlighted his comments about self-defense and fearfulness during the interview.

During cross, the defense admitted Miu's statements about how he got the knife were "inaccurate."

The defense tried several times to get Hart's assessment of Miu's claim he was surrounded before the stabbings, but never got a clear answer between objections.

The state then asked more questions, including whether Miu mentioned being strangled or threatened with the statement "You've got 10 seconds." Hart said he did not mention those things during his interview.

The defense asked her to clarify that just because he didn't mention them doesn't mean they didn't happen, to which she agreed.

Nicolae Miu takes the stand in his defense

Miu agreed to testify and took the stand late Tuesday morning in his defense. 

The defense began by presenting a cell phone video of the altercation and asking Miu to set the scene for them. The video was stopped at the point where he was near the group that was confronting him. 

Miu said the group was telling him to "go, go away," touching him and pushing him. He said he felt threatened at that point and agreed that he had a knife in his right hand. 

Miu said he pushed away a woman who was close to his personal space and he felt threatened. 

The defense went back to some background, showing pictures of Miu recovering from heart surgery. Miu briefly became emotional when talking about his dog, who he called "my baby" and "my angel." Miu said, due to the surgery and his weight, that his health was "very poor" on the day of the stabbings. 

The defense asked Miu about the knife. Miu said he was asked to bring the knife to cut string while tubing down the river. He said he has it on him a lot, calling it his "Swiss army knife" and that he uses it "pretty much anywhere" because he's an engineer. 

The defense asked Miu if he was being truthful when he talked about the knife with investigator Hart. To that, Miu replied, "I lied about the knife." He said that he had his knife on him when he went to look for the phone on the river. 

Back to the events on the river, Miu said he was confronted by the group when he was out looking for the phone. He said they asked him what he was looking for and he said he was looking for a phone. He said they later began yelling at him that he was a "raper" and was trying to look for "little girls."

The defense asked if Miu ever told the group that he was looking for girls and Miu responded, "Absolutely not, that's pathetic."

Miu said he approached the group because he saw someone with a phone in a bag and wanted to see if that was the one his friend left. He said as he rushed up to see the phone he tripped and fell into one of the tubers. 

Miu said at one point, he dropped his snorkel and goggles set, so he had to search around the group's tubes. He said the group told him "he has 10 seconds" to leave the area, but he ignored them. As he was searching for the snorkel and goggles, Miu said teenage boys began approaching him. 

He said another group, who appeared to be adults, approached him and he tried to explain to one woman, Madison Coen, what he was looking for. He said Coen wasn't listening to him and was telling him to leave. Miu said he told her not to touch him, because she was "pulling on him" and trying to drag him down the river. 

"She didn't even try to reprimand the children for yelling," Miu said. 

As the group got even closer to him, Miu said he became more fearful and testified that he went for his pocket knife because he was worried. He said when they were pushing him and attacking him, he took it out. He clarified that he took out the knife before he was punched. 

Miu testified that, on a scale of one to 10, his fear level was at a two or three just before he took his knife out of his pocket.  

Miu said he didn't turn away from the group because they were too close to him. 

Court breaks for lunch

After a lunch break, the defense picked up right before the altercation began on the river. 

Miu said he pushed Coen to get her out of "his space" and he didn't feel safe turning his back to the group. He said, almost immediately after pushing Coen, he was punched in the face.

He said he was "stunned" and fell back into the water, hitting his head on river rocks. Miu said, at that point, his fear scale was "right at the top" at a 10. He said he's never been in a situation like this or a fight in his life.  

He said he tried to get up but he felt people pushing him down and also felt something hit his head. He said it felt like 10 people were restraining him. 

Miu said he used his knife in response because he feared for his life.  The defense asked if he thought he could get away without using his knife, and he responded in the negative.

"I couldn't even get up. They were pushing me down, so the answer is no," Miu said. 

He said, after using the knife, that people stopped attacking him and he then walked away. He told the defense that he wasn't trying to kill anybody — we was trying to defend himself. 

Miu said he hurt all over the next day, including his head, neck, throat and back. Miu said, after seeing video of the attack, he understood why his throat hurt, because he was choked. 

He described his bodily response, saying that his heartbeat was high, and his head was in a fog. He added that he was afraid and felt that he had to throw his knife away.

When he returned to his friends, he said his head was in a thick cloud, and he couldn't understand what happened. He didn't recall being told that he was arrested for homicide, Miu said.

Cross-examination begins

The prosecution then started cross-examination, asking why Miu chose to go toward a crowd of people to look for the phone. He said he wasn't angry that someone called him a "raper," and when Coen came up to him, his "anger scale" was at a one out of 10. That's when he started fidgeting with his knife in his pocket, he said.

The prosecution then started asking about the victims, and Miu's movements during the stabbings. During this testimony, Miu said that Ryhley Mattison had her hands on him, which is why Miu stabbed her. 

When Schuman approached, Miu agreed that he stabbed the teenager in the heart as soon as he was touched. 

"He went for my throat, and I defended myself," Miu said. The prosecution showed screenshots that demonstrated that Miu's arm was cocked and the knife was in his hand when Schuman's hands were on his shoulder.

Miu acknowledged that even though he told police that the group was armed, no one else had a knife.

He also said he waved for help from his friends, but the prosecution pointed out that Ariel Chaguez-Leyet was in the vicinity by the time he stabbed Tony Carlson and Isaac Schuman. He added that Tony Carlson never touched him, but he attempted to stab him twice. The first stab was blocked, so he stabbed Tony Carlson again, Miu agreed.

Miu also agreed that he didn't call for help while he was stabbing the victims. When the prosecution asked, Miu added that Dante Carlson was not fighting when he stabbed him. 

After another break, the prosecution continued their cross-examination by asking Miu what happened after the stabbings occurred.

Miu said he doesn't remember if anyone from his group went to help. He said he then went back to the group, where he put on his hat, shirt and sunglasses.

Miu said he saw emergency personnel along the river and said he was afraid to go to the area where police were.

Miu said he was "afraid of everybody" because he was in shock. The prosecution asked if he was afraid of police, but he said he didn't remember. He said it was all a blur, that he remembered being stopped by police, but doesn't remember the details.

The prosecution showed video of Miu's arrest and him asking police what happened. When asked by defense if he was "fishing for information," Miu said he didn't remember.

Once again, Miu said that he lied in an interview with investigator Hart when he was talking about the knife. The prosecution said he "lied on top of lies," including that the boys tried to pull down his shorts and that they grabbed his goggles and threw them.

Miu agreed that he "totally lied" about the knife, but doesn't remember his talk with Hart.

The prosecution continued to note things that Miu didn't tell police, but testified about in the trial, including that he was choked and felt afraid because of it. Miu reiterated that he didn't remember the interview with Hart.  

The prosecution showed Miu his pocket knife, saying "that's the knife you used to stab these people." To that, he responded, "that's the knife I used to defend myself, yes."

The defense then asked if Miu felt he was fit enough to take on 13 adults and teenagers in a fight, to which Miu said "no." Miu added that he was very confident in the accuracy of his feelings.

Court wrapped up on Tuesday shortly before 4 p.m. 

Day 6 recap

The second week of the trial began with testimony from 19-year-old Owen Peloquin, who was on the river with Schuman that day and said he was Schuman's best friend. Peloquin said Miu made his group "super uncomfortable" and that he heard Miu say "something about little girls." The defense contended that interview records show Peloquin did not tell police Miu said he was looking for "little girls." But Peloquin said that's what he remembered. 

Dr. Brian Myer, a trauma surgeon working at Regions Hospital in St. Paul on the day of the stabbings, testified about the extent of the injuries. Myer said Martin's injury stood out to him because he's never had a patient with that large of a penetrating wound before.    

Nurse Ashley Hoffman testified about examining Miu following the stabbings. She said he reported getting hit in the back and the back of his head, but did not have any pain in those areas. She also said she could not find anything that suggested he had been choked or hit in the face.

Lead investigator John Shilts took the stand to talk about the investigatory process. After that, two previous witnesses returned to the stand — St. Croix County Sgt. Benjamin Trebian and detective Carlos de la Cruz of the New Richmond Police Department. Legal expert Joe Tamburino, who is unaffiliated with the case, told WCCO the prosecution was using these witnesses to attempt to discredit previous testimony from members of Miu's party.

In a somewhat unusual move, the defense was allowed to call witnesses Monday afternoon because none of the prosecution's remaining witnesses were available. St. Croix County investigator Andrew Dittman, bystander Roberto Baldazo and Miu's friend Amanda Torres all took the stand for the defense.

Anthony Bettin is a web producer at WCCO. He primarily covers breaking news and sports, with a focus on the Minnesota Vikings.

Featured Local Savings

More from cbs news.

Erick Haynes sentenced to life in prison for death of Zaria McKeever

Immir Fyontane Rice, 25, sentenced to life in prison for 2023 murders

Woman dies after knife attack in downtown Duluth, police say

After assault proves fatal in Chanhassen, person of interest found dead in Minneapolis