Defense and Viva Preparation Dossier: What You Receive

Model answer: This study contributes to the field by [contribution]. While previous research has examined [what others did], no study has investigated [specific gap] in [specific context]. The findings demonstrate that [key finding], which extends the evidence base for [framework/theory]. See pages [X] to [Y] for the full articulation of the contribution.

Model answer: [Framework] was selected because it specifically addresses the relationship between [variables] in [context], which aligns directly with my research questions. [Alternative framework] focuses on [what it covers], which does not account for [specific aspect] that is central to this study. The rationale for framework selection is discussed on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The findings have direct implications for [policy area] because [explanation]. Specifically, [finding] suggests that [policy recommendation]. This aligns with current policy direction from [organization/guideline] but extends it by adding evidence from [specific population/context]. Policy implications are discussed on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: A [design] design was selected because [justification linked to research questions]. A [alternative] design was considered but would not have been appropriate because [reason]. The [chosen design] allows for [specific capability] which directly addresses RQ[X]. The design rationale is presented on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: [For quantitative:] Sample size was determined through an a priori power analysis using G*Power, based on a [test type], an expected effect size of [d/f], alpha = .05, and power = .80, yielding a minimum required n = [number]. The achieved sample was n = [actual], exceeding the minimum. [For qualitative:] Data saturation was reached at [number] participants, defined as the point where no new themes emerged. Two additional interviews were conducted to confirm saturation. The rationale is on page [X].

Model answer: Bias was addressed through [strategy 1], [strategy 2], and [strategy 3]. For example, [specific explanation]. The validity and reliability section on pages [X] to [Y] details all strategies.

Model answer: The primary threats are [threat 1] and [threat 2]. [Threat 1] was mitigated by [strategy]. [Threat 2] is acknowledged as a limitation because [explanation]. Despite these threats, the findings are strengthened by [positive aspect]. Validity discussion is on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The analysis showed [detailed finding with exact statistic or quote]. This means that [interpretation]. This finding was [expected/unexpected] based on the literature. Specifically, [Author, Year] found [similar/different result], which I interpret as [explanation]. The full results are in Table [X] on page [Y].

Model answer: The non-significant result for [variable] may be attributed to [explanation 1] or [explanation 2]. This does not diminish the study's contribution because [reason]. It does, however, suggest that [implication for future research]. This is discussed on page [X].

Model answer: The findings are generalizable to [specific population/context] because [reason, e.g., sampling strategy, sample characteristics]. They should not be generalized to [out-of-scope population] because [reason]. The delimitations section on page [X] defines the boundaries, and the limitations discussion on page [Y] addresses this directly.

Model answer: [If familiar:] Yes, [Author X] published [brief description] in [year]. Their finding that [finding] is [consistent with / different from] my results because [explanation]. [If unfamiliar:] I am not familiar with that specific work. Based on your description, it sounds [related/relevant]. I would be interested in examining how their findings compare to mine, particularly regarding [specific aspect]. If the methodology and context are similar, it could strengthen the external validity of my conclusions.

Model answer: The literature review was scoped to [inclusion criteria], focusing on studies that [specific criterion]. [Topic/author] was [not identified in the search / excluded because it addresses a different population or context / published after the search was completed]. If the committee considers it essential, I am open to incorporating it in a revised version. The search strategy and inclusion rationale are on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The three main limitations are: (1) [limitation with brief explanation], (2) [limitation with brief explanation], and (3) [limitation with brief explanation]. Each is mitigated by [strategies]. These limitations are discussed on pages [X] to [Y] and inform the recommendations for future research on page [Z].

Model answer: I would consider [change 1, e.g., a larger sample, a different sampling method, an additional data collection instrument] because [reason]. I would also [change 2] to strengthen [aspect of the study]. These reflections are consistent with the limitations and future research recommendations on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The findings suggest that [practitioners] should [specific recommendation 1] and [specific recommendation 2]. This is supported by [finding that supports it]. The practical implications are discussed in detail on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The findings [support / extend / challenge] [framework] by demonstrating that [explanation]. Specifically, the relationship between [variables] in [context] was [stronger than / weaker than / different from] what the framework predicts, suggesting that [theoretical implication]. This is discussed on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: Ethics approval was obtained from [committee] on [date], reference number [X]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants through [process]. Data was anonymized by [method] and stored securely in [location]. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. The full ethics section is on pages [X] to [Y].

Model answer: The most valuable follow-up study would be [description], because [reason linked to findings and limitations]. This would address the gap identified in limitation [X] and test whether the findings hold in [different context/population]. This is aligned with Recommendation [X] on page [Y].

Model answer: This study investigated [research problem] among [population] in [setting]. Using a [design] design with [sample], data was collected via [instruments] and analyzed using [methods]. The key findings were: [finding 1], [finding 2], and [finding 3]. These findings contribute to [field] by [contribution] and suggest that [practical implication]. The study is limited by [main limitation] but provides a foundation for [future direction].

Model answer: This research matters because [real-world impact]. [Statistic or fact demonstrating the scope of the problem]. The findings show that [actionable insight], which can directly inform [practice/policy]. Without this evidence, [consequence of not knowing]. The significance of the study is established on pages [X] to [Y].