Introducing a new concept from research

Who Knows?

Hi,

I am wrapping up my PhD and making the final changes before submitting. I want to introduce a new theory which emerges from the findings which I coined myself.

I am not sure whether I would be crucified in the viva if I do so or should I play it safe and remove it?

Have any of you got experience with this?

Thanks.

Ostrom

What discipline are you working in? I've outlined a few alternative theories in mine (approaching final stages also), but as with everything, your supervisor/reader will be best placed to advise.

djpbarry

Who Knows? wrote: »

I am wrapping up my PhD and making the final changes before submitting. I want to introduce a new theory which emerges from the findings which I coined myself.

I am not sure whether I would be crucified in the viva if I do so or should I play it safe and remove it?

I'm not sure I understand - surely the point of a PhD is to demonstrate something novel?

Turbulent Bill

Who Knows? wrote: »

I want to introduce a new theory which emerges from the findings which I coined myself.

You have to demonstrate novelty for a PhD (that's the idea!), so new theories would be encouraged once you can support them. I'd be wary though of 'branding' them though (e.g., "Who Knows' Excellent New Theory of Everything") as it might look a bit crass.

blucey

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand - surely the point of a PhD is to demonstrate something novel?

In fact that's the difference between a masters and a phd. It doesn't have to be a theory, but novelty is the game.

KINGVictor

blucey wrote: »

In fact that's the difference between a masters and a phd. It doesn't have to be a theory, but novelty is the game.

Absolutely. Novelty in a PhD thesis is crucial and would determine whether you pass or fail but it is not mandatory that the PhD should generate theory.

The OP is rightly concerned how any theory generation in her/his thesis would affect the Viva process. I think that would be down to the OP's ability to defend the theory been generated especially in terms of the arguement been put forward to justify the theory and key elements such as reliability/validity etc which the examiners would most likely seek clarification.

More importantly, the OP's supervisor will be best placed to advice if the theory makes academic sense and is defensible.

Metalpanic

KINGVictor wrote: »

Absolutely. Novelty in a PhD thesis is crucial and would determine whether you pass or fail but it is not mandatory that the PhD should generate theory.

The OP is rightly concerned how any theory generation in her/his thesis would affect the Viva process. I think that would be down to the OP's ability to defend the theory been generated especially in terms of the arguement been put forward to justify the theory and key elements such as reliability/validity etc which the examiners would most likely seek clarification.

More importantly, the OP's supervisor will be best placed to advice if the theory makes academic sense and is defensible.

+1 to this. Novelty is the key to a successful PhD, it's one of the first questions many people get asked in a viva, "what is novel about your work". It's all about how you can defend and back up your claims with results and reasoned arguments, but defer to your supervisor. I was once told a PhD thesis should ask more questions than it answers, so personally I'd put in your new theory.