Remote oral doctoral dissertation defenses are an alternative to face-to-face meetings when the latter are not feasible, but remote defenses also have their own advantages. This article explores the challenges and benefits of remote oral dissertation defenses and theories relevant to understanding and supporting remote defenses as a unique learning and assessment event. Drawing on the technology pedagogy content knowledge model, remote work research, and media synchronicity theory, we review key principles relevant to translating defenses from a face-to-face to a remote format. The article includes two appendices with recommended readings and detailed practical guidelines to support the planning and facilitation of remote defenses.
AvolioB. J.SosikJ. J.KahaiS. S.BakerB. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
2.
ChangK. (2007). Kant’s disputation of 1770: The dissertation and the communication of knowledge in early modern Europe. Endeavour, 31(2), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2007.05.008
3.
ChenS. (2011). Making sense of the doctoral dissertation defense: A student-experience-based perspective. In AmundsenC.McAlpineL. (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 97-114). Springer.
4.
DanbyS.LeeA. (2012). Researching doctoral pedagogy close up: Design and action in two doctoral programmes. Australian Universities Review, 54(1), 19-28. http://www.nteu.org.au/library/view/id/2274
5.
DennisA. R.FullerR. M.ValacichJ. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2017388.2017395
HindsP. J.MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
8.
KahaiS. (2018). E-leadership: An essential part of doctoral leadership education. In HyattL.AllenS. (Eds.), Advancing doctoral leadership education (pp. 11-35). Edward Elgar.
9.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP.CainW. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?Journal of Education, 139(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
10.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566
11.
LeonardJ. B. (2006). Doctoral students’ perspectives on the dissertation. In MakiP. L.BorkowskiN. A. (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes (pp. 197-214). Stylus.
12.
LovittsB. E. (2006). Making the implicit explicit: Faculty’s performance expectations for the dissertation. In MakiP. L.BorkowskiN. A. (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes (pp. 163-187). Stylus.
13.
MerriamS. B.BieremaL. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley.
14.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
RobertsC.HyattL. (2019). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (3rd ed.). Corwin.
17.
SeamanJ. E.AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. The Babson Survey Research Group.
18.
WinstonB. E. (2018). Selecting and implementing technology in support of doctoral curriculum and program management. In HyattL.AllenS. (Eds.), Advancing doctoral leadership education through technology (pp.75-86). Edward Elgar.
