phd defence lth

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

• EditPad Research Title Generator: Is It Helpful to Create a Title for Your Research?
• Are Postdoctoral Fellowships Taxable? A Guide to Understanding Tax Implications
• How to Get Off-Cycle Research/Academic Internships
• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• 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

This site uses cookies to enhance the user experience. By continuing to use the site you agree that cookies are used according to our Cookie Policy (on the website of LTH) .

PhD website LTH

• Information for new doctoral students
• Study plans
• Departmental duties
• Student representation
• Scholarship
• Midway review
• Registration and review
• Preliminary review
• Printing and distribution
• Notification
• The public defence
• Doctoral Conferment Ceremony
• Graduate schools
• Double degree
• Discontinuation from studies
• Current courses
• Faculty-wide courses
• Courses Given Regularly
• Courses Given on Request
• Credit transfer
• Learn Swedish
• Supervision
• Support functions
• Research support LTH Library
• Academic writing
• Skills and career development
• International opportunities
• Research ethics

A licentiate can either be an independent education within the framework of external funding, such as an industrial doctoral student, or as part of a complete doctoral education. Third cycle studies that include or end with a licentiate degree may be arranged in all research study subjects at LTH.

A licentiate degree comprises 120 higher education credits, divided into a course part and a thesis part. How the points can be distributed between courses and thesis is stated in the general study plan for the specific subject.

The individual study plan must state whether the education is to lead to a licentiate degree, either as the final goal of the education or as a stage towards a doctoral degree. 

Licentiate thesis

The scientific thesis must comprise at least 60 higher education credits, but the scope can vary between different research study subjects and is stated in the general study plan. The thesis should be similar in design to a doctoral thesis, but is less comprehensive. The thesis can be a monograph or consist of separate articles with a summary (“kappa”).

Licentiate seminar

The licentiate thesis must be defended orally at a public seminar. The licentiate seminar may take place between 15 August and the Friday before midsummer, with the exception of the period between 22 December and 6 January. At the seminar, a chairman, an faculty opponent and an examiner must be appointed. It is the head of the department who appoints the examiner and faculty opponent as well as decides on the time and announcement of the licentiate seminar. These decisions may only be delegated to the director of studies for third cycle studies, but not to the individual who is the doctoral student's supervisor.

The opponent is appointed to review the thesis and discuss the scientific content with the licentiate / doctoral student during the seminar. The person who reviews the thesis must have a doctoral degree and may not be active at their own faculty or department, unless there are special reasons. If there are special reasons, the Dean at LTH can allow such deviation from the rules.

The licentiate thesis is graded by a teacher appointed by the head of department. The licentiate's / doctoral student's supervisor may not be appointed as an examiner. When grading, the examiner must take into account the content of the thesis and the defense of it at the seminar. The thesis must be assessed with one of the grades failed or passed. If the thesis is judged to have failed, this must be justified in writing.

Announcement

The announcement must be made at least three weeks before the licentiate seminar. The announcement shall contain information about the student's name, research education subject, the title and scope of the thesis in higher education credits, examiner, opponent and time and place for the seminar. At the time of the announcement, the scientific thesis must be available so that it will be possible to review it at the seminar. Where the thesis is kept available is stated in the announcement.

Printing of the thesis

The department is responsible for the costs of printing the thesis. The licentiate / doctoral student has the right to receive 20 copies for their own use.

Certificate of approved licentiate thesis

After passing the seminar, the licentiate thesis is registered in Ladok by LTH office. In order for this to be possible, the form "Certificate of approved licentiate thesis" needs to be filled in and sent in the original to LTH's office, collection point 55.

The form is available on LTHin and is signed by the examiner and head of department.

Relevant documents

See "Guidelines for third-cycle education at LTH " on the page "My doctoral studies"

Faculty-specific staff information

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support ).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Thesis defence

This page provides support for doctoral students, supervisors, and department representatives at the Faculty of Science on how to register for a thesis defence. A more detailed description can be found in the document below.

Advice and instructions for doctoral students and departments in connection with the public defence of theses (PDF, 283 kB, new tab)

Shortcuts to the content on this page:

Time for the defence, book a date for a thesis defence – to be done by the doctoral student, send information documents to the examining committee members and external reviewer – to be done by the departmental representative, submit an application for a thesis defence – to be done by the departmental representative or head of department, digital components of thesis defences, announcement and nailing of the thesis – to be done by the doctoral student, examining committee minutes – to be handled by the chair of the examining committee, degree – to be handled by the doctoral student.

The general rule is that the thesis defence is to be held during the semester. In the spring semester, the defence can be held from the start of the semester up to and including the Friday before midsummer. In the autumn semester, the thesis defence can be held during term time, except during the winter break which is 22 December to 6 January.

If there are special reasons, the defence can be held at another time. Contact the administrator at the faculty office for more information.

As a doctoral student, you book the date of your thesis defence in the thesis defence system. Book the date as soon as possible after your individual study plan has been followed up and you have received confirmation that it is time for you to defend your thesis. When you book the date, you need to add your departmental representative as administrator.

Instructions on how to book a date for a thesis defence:

• Log in to the thesis defence system - lth.se   Log in with your Lucat identity (do not add "@lu.se" to the username).
• Fill in all fields in the booking form and add your departmental representative as administrator of your booking.
• Click on the button "Book and email".
• Notify your departmental representative that he or she has been added as an administrator in the booking.

As a departmental representative, you need to send a short information document to those who are asked to act as examining committee members and external reviewer. When they accept the assignment, they need to digitally fill in the short form in the document and then send the document back to you. You confirm that this has been done by checking a specific field in the application for the defence in the defence system.

Information regarding the assignment as a member of an examining committee or external reviewer at the Faculty of Science (PDF, 266 kB, opens in a new tab)

As a departmental representative or head of department, you need to submit an application for the thesis defence at least eight weeks before the date of the defence. Please note that the summer and winter breaks are not included in the eight weeks (summer break: from Friday before midsummer up to and including 15 August. Winter break: from 22 December up to and including 6 January).

Instructions on how to submit an application for a thesis defence

Log in to the thesis defence system - lth.se

Enter your Lucat identity (do not add "@lu.se" to the username).

2. Make sure there is a date booked for the thesis defence

In order for the defence to be registered, the date must already be booked.

3. Fill in the registration form

To apply for a thesis defence, click on the link "Application" and fill in all fields. If you want the defence to be streamed, you need to mark the field for this. Two new fields will then appear – one where you enter if the defence will have a digital link and one where you justify why the defence should have digital components. You also need to specify which persons will participate digitally, by marking the relevant fields.

Then upload all the requested appendices:

• Brief CV including publication list for the past five years for the external reviewer, the examining committee members, and the substitute committee members.
• A summary of the doctoral student’s contribution to the thesis (applies to compilation theses).

Members of the examining committee, substitutes, and the external reviewer must at least have attained the academic degree of docent (applies to employees at Swedish universities) or equivalent qualifications (i.e. employed at a foreign university or within the industry). Equivalent qualifications entails qualifications that are expected of a docent, such as substantial academic output after completing their doctoral thesis and some experience in supervising doctoral students. Docent qualification or equivalent qualifications must be stated in the CV.

4. Submit the application form

Once you have filled in all the required information and uploaded the appendices, click on the “Applicate and email” button at the bottom right of the page. Please note that only the departmental representative or the head of department (for the Department of Physics: only the head of department), are authorised to click on this button.

Then you print out the application, sign it with a blue ink pen and send it to Constance Holmbäck, Faculty of Science Administration Office, HS 39.

As a general principle, PhD thesis defences are to take place in a room that the University provides, with all participants in physical attendance. However, certain digital components of the defence may be permitted if there are reasons to do so. The request for digital components is to be made by the department representative or the head of department when submitting the application for the thesis defence. The Vice-Dean will then decide on the matter.

Rules on digital components

Decision on digital components.

Decisions on digital components of thesis defences are taken in conjunction with the designation of time, place, external reviewer, examining committee members and substitute members. The Management regulations for the public defence of doctoral theses at the Faculty of Science, STYR 2020/1448 (PDF, 190 kB, new tab) , apply, with the following additions:

• In conjunction with the thesis notification, the department representative or head of department to request the digital components that have been proposed.
• Before the request for digital components is made, the department representative or head of department has to consult with the doctoral student and principal supervisor.
• The doctoral student has to be aware of any digital components which are to be included in the thesis defence.
• The doctoral student’s wishes as to whether the external reviewer will participate digitally have to be taken into consideration.

General rules on attendance for thesis defences

The following applies:

• The general principle is that thesis defences are to take place in a room that the University provides, with all the participants in physical attendance. However, digital components may be permitted if there are reasons to do so.
• The author of the thesis and the person appointed as chair for the defence must always be in physical attendance at the premises, even if digital components of the defence are permitted.
• At least one supervisor and two members of the examining committee are also to be in physical attendance during the thesis defence, unless there are valid reasons to the contrary (contact the Faculty administration).
• The external reviewer, the remaining members of the examining committee member, and other supervisors may attend remotely.
• Local substitute members of the examining committee are to be present in person, so that a regular committee member participating via a link can be easily replaced in the event of technical problems.

If the external reviewer and examining committee members are not present in person, the following applies:

• The external reviewer must have access to the presentation by the author of the thesis and be able to participate throughout the thesis defence.
• Examining committee members must have access to the presentations and be able to participate throughout the thesis defence.
• The chair of the thesis defence is to be available for direct telephone contact so that any technical problems can be handled.
• In the event of a technical failure which entails that the external reviewer or a committee member cannot fully participate, the thesis defence must be conducted again or postponed.

Live streaming of thesis defences

Thesis defences at Lund University are to be organised in rooms where the public has the possibility to attend and pose questions, and where appropriate technology is provided. Digital components of thesis defences may include live streaming, which means that audio and video are broadcast in real time over the internet and are not recorded and stored. This option does not need to guarantee the possibility for remote participants to pose questions.

One section of the room used for a thesis defence is to be excluded from live streaming. The chair of the thesis defence is responsible for ensuring this and also for ensuring that members of the public who wish to sit in that section are shown where it is located.

Announcement of thesis defences with digital components

When announcing a thesis defence, the public is to be informed of the following:

• that the thesis defence will take place at a specified location
• any digital components that might be included
• whether the thesis defence will be live-streamed, and, if so, that a section of the room will be excluded from live streaming.

Change in decision

The Vice-Dean for third-cycle education takes decisions on digital components in specific thesis defences. The following applies regarding amendments to these decisions:

• If any part of the Vice-Dean’s decision needs to be changed, or if the thesis defence needs to be cancelled, a department representative can request that the Vice-Dean take a new decision.
• If a member of the examining committee is to be replaced, it is often appropriate that the substitute steps in as a regular member and a new substitute is appointed.
• If an external reviewer is to be replaced, it is often appropriate that one of the examining committee members steps in as external reviewer, that the substitute steps in as a regular member, and a new substitute is appointed.
• Decisions about substitutes may as a rule be taken at short notice (a few days).

The examining committee’s meeting

• One of the members of the examining committee who is in physical attendance during the thesis defence is to be selected as chair of the examining committee’s meeting.
• The examining committee’s chair is responsible for the examining committee’s meeting.
• If any of the members participate digitally, the examining committee’s meeting is to be held digitally. A link to the meeting is to be made available only to the members of the examining committee, the external reviewer, and supervisors.
• The external reviewer and supervisors are to be available to respond to questions from the examining committee and may participate in discussions, but are not to take part in the decision.

At least 24 days before the public defence, the thesis must be made available for scrutiny by the academic community and the general public. This is done, among other things, by the nailing of the thesis, which is done by the doctoral student. Please note that summer and winter breaks are not included in the 24 days (summer break: from Friday before midsummer up to and including 15 August. Winter break: from 22 December up to and including 6 January). If you are prevented from doing the nailing in time, please contact the administrator at the faculty office and we will try to find a solution.

Nail your thesis:

• Register the thesis electronically in the Lund University research database, LUCRIS.
• Submit three copies of the printed thesis to the reception desk at the Lund University Library (UB) in Lund. Make sure you get a receipt confirming that you have submitted the thesis.
• Submit the receipt from the Lund University Library and two copies of the printed thesis to the Faculty of Science Administration Office.

Log in to LUCRIS

Support for registering your thesis in LUCRIS – lub.lu.se

After the thesis defence, the examining committee minutes must be signed by the chair of committee and then sent to Constance Holmbäck, Faculty of Science Administration Office, HS 39.

Template for examining committee minutes (in Swedish) (PDF, 81 kB, new tab)

You apply for a degree certificate through an application form.

Download the application form for degree certificate – lunduniversity.lu.se

Constance Holmbäck Administrative coordinator Contact information for Constance Holmbäck – staff.lu.se

Learn how to create a print ready thesis

The internal printing office Media-Tryck can help you out. Read more on the printing office website.

Den här webbplatsen använder cookies för att förbättra användarupplevelsen. Genom att fortsätta använda webbplatsen samtycker du till att cookies används enligt vår cookie-policy (på LTH:s webbplats) .

Institutionen för datavetenskap

• Exjobbsområden
• Exjobbet - steg-för-steg
• Gemensamma presentationsdagar
• Anmäl presentation
• Arbetsgivaren
• Handledaren utanför LTH
• Driftgruppen
• Vanliga frågor
• Föreskrifter angående obligatoriska moment
• Samarbete eller fusk
• Publikationer
• Forskningscentra
• Jobba hos oss

PhD defence: Mutation Testing: Fewer, Faster, and Smarter

Thesis title:  Mutation Testing: Fewer, Faster, and Smarter

Author: Sten Vercammen, University of Antwerp and Department of Computer Science, Lund University

Faculty opponent : Professor Jeff Offutt, George Mason University, USA

Examination Committee:

Associate Professor Birgitta Lindström, University of Skövde

Associate Professor Cyrille Artho, Royal Institute of Technology

Associate Professor Bestoun Ahmed, Karlstad University

• Deputy: Senior Lecturer Martina Maggio, Lund University

Session chair: Senior Lecturer Emelie Engström, Lund University

Supervisors:

Professor Serge Demeyer, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Professor Görel Hedin, Lund University

Dr. Markus Borg, Lund University

Location: E:1406, E-building, John Ericssons väg 2 / Ole Römers väg 3, Lund, Sweden

For download:  Follow this link to download the pdf:  https://portal.research.lu.se/en/projects/mutation-testing-fewer-faster-and-smarter

The growing reliance on automated software tests raises a fundamental question: How trustworthy are these automated tests? Today, mutation testing is acknowledged within academic circles as the most promising technique for assessing the fault-detection capability of a test suite. The technique deliberately injects faults (called mutants) into the production code and counts how many of them are caught by the test suite.

Mutation testing shines in systems with high statement coverage because uncaught mutants reveal weaknesses in code which is supposedly covered by tests. Safety-critical systems –where safety standards dictate high statement coverage - are therefore a prime candidate for mutation testing. In safety-critical software, C and C++ dominate the technology stack. Yet in the mutation testing community, the C language family is somehow neglected: a systematic literature review on mutation testing from 2019 reports that less than 25% of the primary studies target source code from the C language family. Despite the apparent potential, mutation testing is difficult to adopt in industrial settings, because the technique -in its basic form- requires a tremendous amount of computing power. Without optimisations, the entire code base must be compiled and tested separately for each injected mutant. Hence for medium to large test suites, mutation testing without optimisations becomes prohibitively expensive.

To make mutation testing effective in an industrial setting, we set three objectives: (1) generate fewer mutants, (2) process them smarter and (3) execute them faster. To meet our objectives, we investigate the most promising techniques from the current state-of-the-art. This ranges from leveraging cloud technology to compiler integrated techniques using the Clang front-end. These optimisation strategies allow to eliminate the compilation and execution overhead in order to to supportefficient mutation testing for the C language family. As a final step, we perform an empirical study on the perception of mutation testing in industry. The aim is to investigate whether the advances are sufficient to allow industrial adoption and to identify any remaining barriers preventing industrial adoption.

In this thesis, we show that a combination of mutation testing optimisation techniques from the do fewer, do faster, and do smarter are needed to perform mutation testing in a continuous integration setting. Furthermore, the industrial perception of mutation testing is evolving as additional organisations recognise its potential.

Fler händelser

Om händelsen Tid: 2023-03-14 13:15 till 16:00

Plats E:1406, E-building, John Ericssons väg 2 / Ole Römers väg 3, Lund, Sweden

Kontakt sten [dot] vercammen [at] cs [dot] lth [dot] se

Public defence of doctoral thesis

This page contains information on how to apply for a thesis defence at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

It is important to keep the following schedule, otherwise the public defence may have to be postponed.​ A public defence of doctoral thesis may only take place between:

• August 15 – December 20 and
• January 7 – June 15

Dates within these periods are referred to as term weeks. When counting weeks to fulfill requirements only time within term time  is counted. For example, if you plan on having the defence on August 15, count 10 weeks back from June 15.* The public defence must also stay as close as possible to normal office hours at KTH  (CET). The doctoral student is responsible for the process unless otherwise noted. Feel free to contact us  if you need help.

* As an exception, the deadline for making the thesis publicly available and distributing it—three weeks before the defence—is extended during the summer period. Please see the subheading "Due 3 weeks before the defence" below.

"All thesis defences and licentiate seminars on campus shall be made available to spectators digitally." This means that even defences and seminars where all participants are present should be streamed online. In such cases, the stream setup does not have to be as advanced as an online/hybrid defence/seminar. ( Thesis, thesis defence and qualification , in Swedish)

"Autumn semester 2021 and onwards: [...] The defense of doctoral theses/dissertations may be held on campus and digitally. Doctoral thesis and licentiate seminars are open to the public and are, where applicable, subject to the Government's restrictions on public gatherings. Digital defense of doctoral thesis/dissertation and licentiate seminars are encouraged partly for quality reasons (increased opportunities for international participation in the grading committee and as an opponent), and partly for sustainability reasons (reduced travel). All doctoral thesis/dissertations and licentiate seminars must be digitally accessible for spectators." ( Decision by the President of KTH, V-2021-0421 , in Swedish)

Due 10 weeks before defence

☐ Submit the Advance reviewer for doctoral thesis  application form (only the signature of the principal supervisor is required) to [email protected] .

☐ Start a revision of the doctoral student's individual study plan.

☐ The principal supervisor checks availability of opponent and members of the grading committee.

☐ If anything other than physical presence is planned for the supervisor or doctoral student, this must be justified via email to the Director of Third-Cycle Education  (FA) in charge of the programme in question, cc [email protected] , at the beginning of the entire application process. FA will then return with a prior notice.

☐ Send a preliminary version of the thesis to the advance reviewer once he/she has been approved by the director of third-cycle education.

"The advance reviewer must have been awarded the Degree of Doctor and be scientifically competent corresponding to the docent. ... Applicable rules on bias must be taken into consideration" ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.2.6)

"The advance reviewer may be appointed as a substitute." ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2)

Read about the requirements for the opponent, chairman of the public defence and grading committee and who proposes these in KTH's Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2. Additions and clarifications:

• Added 2022-01-17: The grading committee members, including the substitute, may not come from the same division as the principal supervisor or the doctoral student unless under exceptional circumstances.
• It should clearly state in the application for public defence of doctoral thesis who is/are planning to participate via video link.
• At least one of each gender must be represented in the grading committee, unless special reasons prevent this and are presented in connection with the application.
• "For a grading committee consisting of three members, at least two members must be collected outside of KTH (may not be employed at KTH)." Clarification: the opponent is not in the grading committee.
• "A replacement must always be appointed." Clarification: From autumn 2021 onwards, only one substitute member of the grading committee will be required unless exceptional circumstances may cause more than one member to withdraw. Previously during the pandemic, the requirement has been that two substitute members (stand-ins) of the grading committee for public defences of doctoral theses must be appointed. If one of the ordinary members of the grading committee is already from KTH, there can only be one substitute from KTH.

"Compensation for the opponent at a public defence of doctoral thesis: SEK 9,000. [...] Compensation for each member of a grading committee: SEK 2,500." ( Guideline on compensation for committee members, specialists and opponents , in Swedish)

Due 6 weeks before defence

☐ Book a lecture hall  for the defence.

☐ Request a TRITA number via the web form TRITA number request for doctoral students at EECS .

☐ Request an ISBN number via the web form ISBN Request  (ISSN and ISRN numbers are no longer used).

☐ Submit to the doctoral education support:

• The form Application thesis defence  (read about the requirements for the opponent, chairman of the public defence and grading committee under the subheading "10 weeks" on this page)
• The form Summary of advance review of doctoral thesis (docx 74 kB)
• The form Distribution list, doctoral thesis . The distribution list must include a minimum of 7 external addresses. The recipients should be divisions, departments or equivalent, not persons. The thesis may be distributed in digital form, if so desired. No certain number of recipients must be Swedish
• The thesis as a preliminary PDF version, with a preliminary title page. The final cover, title page and the following page with book information will be produced by the printing company US-AB during the printing stage later
• CV for the opponent or any member of the grading committee where it is not clearly seen whether they are "scientifically competent corresponding to docent" ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2)

☐ The revised ISP should now at least have the status "Waiting for Administrator of third cycle education" (i.e. approved by doctoral student, principal supervisor and programme director).

☐ Request printing information from the printing company US-AB . Printing must be done by US-AB . The cover, title page and the following page with book information will be produced by the printing company US-AB. Read more about theses covers here . The principal supervisor's invoice reference are often used: EXAMPLE KTHEECS (replace EXAMPLE with his/her reference). Keep in mind that it may take a few days to receive a test print, and another few days to receive all printed copies, so maintain good communication with US-AB to meet the set deadline.

☐ Send the thesis for proof printing when the advance review has been approved. Final printing is not allowed until you have received the decision on the defence.

About 4 weeks before defence

☐ Doctoral Education Support sends a copy of the decision to the doctoral student and principal supervisor when it has been made by the Director of Third-Cycle Education.

☐ Send the thesis for final printing via US-AB.

☐ Create a video conference link, such as a Zoom meeting. KTH also offers Zoom Webinar, which works well for events like this. The meeting organizer (not the respondent) should contact [email protected]  to schedule such a video link. Read more on the web page Zoom Webinar for defense at KTH .

☐ Upload the thesis to DiVA according to the instructions found on the web pages Posting a doctoral or licentiate thesis  and Posting step by step . Make sure to enter the metadata correctly and fill out all relevant fields to avoid unnecessary delay.

☐ Service Center contacts the doctoral student and the principal supervisor regarding logistical and celebratory arrangements .

☐ The principal supervisor is responsible for informing the opponent and members of the grading committee about how the defence will be conducted.

The contact person for those in lack of a computer or computer skills should be the chair of the public defence, or someone delegated by him/her. The chair acts as a moderator and must be able to allow for audience participation (questions and comments) via Zoom, e.g. via the chat window.

The link to the video conference must be published in DiVA well in advance. The doctoral student can do this either (1) by adding the link and passcode (if applicable) to DiVA when registering the DiVA record, or (2) by sending the link and passcode (if applicable) together with the link to the already created DiVA record to [email protected] . The KTH Library will then be able to edit the information in DiVA, which will automatically update the KTH Calendar.

KTH's Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 6.4.4, contains helpful information regarding descriptions of public theses defenses. The EECS guidelines under the subheading "References" on this page may also prove to be useful.

Due 3 weeks before defence

☐ Make sure that the thesis is already uploaded to DiVA (legal requirement).

☐ Send out the thesis (requirement). Contact [email protected]  to receive help with this:

• One copy to each recipient according to the distribution list, including the opponent and the members of the grading committee
• One printed copy to the KTH Library , together with the form Agreement regarding publication  as signed original (legal requirement). The distribution list states that an electronic version should be sent to the KTH Library, this is done by uploading it to DiVA
• Two printed copies—one for archiving and one for the nearest thesis board—to Doctoral Education Support at either Lindstedtsvägen 3, KTH Campus or Kistagången 16, KTH Kista

Starting in 2024, the deadline for making the thesis publicly available and distributing it—three weeks before the defence—is extended during the summer period. Exclude the month of July when calculating your deadline. For example, if your public defence is scheduled for 15 August, count three weeks backwards and exclude only the month of July. Compared to previous years, this change grants doctoral students up to an additional four weeks before publishing and distributing their thesis, depending on when their public defence is scheduled. ( Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 7.2.3 in the revised Swedish version)

All other weekly deadlines are unaffected and still calculated by excluding 16 June-14 August, as mentioned under the second subheading on this page. ( Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 6.4.1)

After the defence

☐ Submit the protocol as signed original (this is normally handled by the chair of the public defence) to the doctoral education support.

Applying for a degree of doctor

☐ When all courses are completed to reach the requirements specified by the doctoral programme, the principal supervisor notifies [email protected]  in order to report it in Ladok.

☐ Make sure your contact information in Ladok  is up to date.

☐ Log in to kth.se , click Services in the menu bar, and then Degree Certificate . Fill out and send in the application for degree certificate by following the instructions. Compare with your individual study plan (ISP) as a reference, so that the application is filled in correctly.

☐ Send your degree application case number (starts with “EX” followed by numbers) in an email to [email protected]  in order to speed up the application process.

☐ Fill out and send in the web form Mobility Questionnaire for Doctoral Students at EECS .

Find links to regulations and forms on the web page Links and resources .

Read about practical arrangements for public defence of doctoral thesis and licentiate seminar logistics .

EECS guidelines: Guidelines for the formal procedure at the public defence of doctoral theses at KTH (pdf 49 kB)

• Lyssna med talande webb
• INTERNATIONAL WEBSITE

• Nuvarande student
• Medarbetare
• Kontakta oss
• Lediga jobb
• Ge till universitetet

Kalendarium

• Nyheter och press
• Innovation & Samverkan
• Om Universitetet

Elektro- och informationsteknik

Lunds tekniska högskola.

• lediga tjänster

PhD defence: Antenna System Design for 5G and Beyond – A Modal Approach

Disputation

Tid: 2023-06-14 09:15 till 15:00 Plats: E:1406, E-huset, Ole Römers väg 3, LTH, Lund University, Lund, and online Kontakt: hanieh [dot] aliakbari_abar [at] eit [dot] lth [dot] se

Title: Antenna System Design for 5G and Beyond – A Modal Approach

Author: Hanieh Aliakbari,   Department of Electrical and Information Technology, Lund University

Location: E:1406 , E-huset, Ole Römers väg 3, LTH, Lund University, Lund. Link to thesis. Link to webinar (Zoom)

Today's society relies more and more on the communications of various contents, especially in the form of data, with wireless communications taking the center stage. The most common form of wireless communications, mobile communications, is changing people’s lives over the entire world. One example is the number of smartphone users that grows by hundreds of millions every year, many of whom do not previously have access to telephony or the many opportunities and conveniences it brings. Simultaneously, due to the popularity of bandwidth-hungry streaming video apps, the traffic generated by existing devices also increases by 30-40% annually. In addition, new wireless application areas are also emerging. For example, autonomous vehicles and drones must communicate with their surroundings to avoid collisions and other incidents. To support these different complex contents in wireless networks, higher data rates are needed. Antenna is a critical component in wireless communications networks as it has the role of sending or receiving the aforementioned data as wireless signals over the air, which eliminates the need for wires. The wireless signals propagate through the medium or channel between the antennas at the transmitter and receiver in the form of electromagnetic waves. In my research, I utilized an antenna design paradigm based on modal methods to meet the antenna requirements for modern wireless systems and achieve higher data rates. Basically, in modal analysis, an antenna’s complex response is described by the weighted sum of multiple rather simpler responses called modes, with the modes being easier to characterize. This results in a more systematic design procedure, which is different from the traditional antenna design framework that mainly relies on intuition from past design experiences and blind numerical optimization of structural parameters.

Following the demand for ever increasing data rates, the antennas in mobile communication systems are required to provide more features and higher performance. One trend is to employ advanced multi-antenna technology to provide high data rates and link reliability. In this context, the first track of my research deals with some fundamental challenges of multi-antenna design for smartphones. The second trend to provide higher data rates for wireless communication is to move towards higher frequencies such as millimeter wave (mm-wave) bands in 5G due to the much larger bandwidths available in those bands than sub-6 GHz bands.  Therefore, the second track of my research investigates new concepts in integrated antennas for mm-wave wireless communications and/or radar systems using different modal theories.

Fler händelser

This site uses cookies to enhance the user experience. By continuing to use the site you agree that cookies are used according to our Cookie Policy (on the website of LTH) .

Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety

• Summer school
• Publications

Succesful PhD defense

– Published 3 February 2020

On Friday 31 January Hanna Lindbom successfully defended her PhD thesis “Improving capability assessments for disaster risk management”. The opponent was Professor Lars Nyberg, Karlstad University.

Congratulations, Dr. Lindbom!

http://www.risk.lth.se?255759&tx_news_pi1[news]=31453

This site uses cookies to enhance the user experience. By continuing to use the site you agree that cookies are used according to our Cookie Policy (on the website of LTH) .

Division of Innovation

Lth aerosols: phd thesis defense by sara thuresson: "when the air went viral: exploring sars-cov-2 in aerosols during the covid-19 pandemic".

Despite the enormous economic and health-related burdens caused by respiratory infectious diseases globally, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding how these are spread by aerosols. The covid-19 pandemic made it clear that understanding airborne transmission is especially important in healthcare, where workers and patients are highly exposed to sources of virus. This thesis aims to advance the knowledge about airborne transmission of infectious diseases, mainly in hospital settings. More specifically, the objectives were to identify sources and risk factors for airborne virus, evaluate prevention strategies and explore the dynamics of infection via inhalation.

Sara Thuresson will defend her PhD thesis "When the air went viral: Exploring SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols during the covid-19 pandemic".

"In total, we collected over 1100 air samples at hospitals during the covid-19 pandemic, both close to covid-19-patients and in other areas, such as ward corridors. The samples were analysed for SARS-CoV-2 RNA content to investigate presence and risk factors for airborne virus. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in around 10% of the samples collected close to patients. In corridors and anterooms, less than 5% of the air samples contained SARS-CoV-2. A number of factors significantly increased the risk of detecting airborne virus in patient rooms: smaller distance to the patient, lower ventilation rates in the room, and higher viral load of the patient, which correlated with the number of days since symptom onset.  To further understand aerosol transmission dynamics, we modeled emissions of infectious virus from an individual in a typical office size room. The simulations showed that a susceptible person can inhale one infectious dose within minutes upon entering a room with an infected individual.  In conclusion, this work contributes to increased knowledge about sources of airborne virus, risk factors and prevention strategies. Our results support the importance of airborne SARS-CoV-2 in transmission of covid-19, but also highlight the challenges of predicting risk situations and designing effective mitigation strategies. Importantly for indoor environments, the risk of infection is smaller with increased ventilation and distancing to the source. Moreover, transmission dynamics are likely highly dependent on individual variations in viral emissions."

Welcome to join!

More events

Om händelsen From: 2024-05-24 09:15 to 12:00

Plats IKDC, Stora hörsalen

Kontakt sara [dot] thuresson [at] design [dot] lth [dot] se

• Search Our university
• TU/e Strategy 2030
• Organization
• Support Services
• World-leading university in cooperation with industry
• TU/e Alumni Community
• TU/e Sustainability
• Publications
• Social Safety
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
• Student wellbeing
• University alliances & networks
• EuFlex Technificent
• Applied Physics and Science Education
• Biomedical Engineering
• Built Environment
• Chemical Engineering and Chemistry
• Eindhoven School of Education
• Electrical Engineering
• Industrial Design
• Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences
• Mathematics and Computer Science
• Mechanical Engineering
• Academic events
• Accessibility
• Study on campus
• Living on campus
• Business on campus
• Work on campus
• TU/e Art Collection
• Campuses in the Netherlands
• Collections in the spotlight
• Library for researchers and PhDs
• Library for students
• Library for lecturers
• How to use the library
• Facts & figures
• Library news
• Overview communities
• Student teams

PhD defense Stefan Wijker

• Directly to

PhD thesis of

Organisational units.

• Thesis (Full text)

Adreanna Nattiel PhD Dissertation Defense: Carnal Knowledge: Black Women, Moral Panics & Sex Education Policy

Join us on Sunday, May 19 at 4:00 pm for Adreanna Nattiel's Dissertation Defense  Carnal Knowledge: Black Women, Moral Panics, and Sex Education Policy.  This event is virtual. To receive the link, please register using the "Get Tickets" link on the right hand side.

In Carnal Knowledge: Black Women, Moral Panics & Sex Education Policy , Adreanna Nattiel unveils the utilization of sex education as a political instrument to discipline and pathologize Black women while also highlighting Black women's political and theoretical resistance to those regimes. Her project scrutinizes the extensive history of sex education policies in the United States and their role in entrenching whiteness, particularly in politically unstable times. Carnal Knowledge contends that despite their racial, class, and gender bias, sex education policies often masquerade as neutral, decoupling sexuality from its inherent political nature. This project chronicles the legislative history of sex education, discovering instances where Black women's scholarship intersects or deviates from these policies.

Carnal Knowledge employs a mixed methods approach, utilizing original archival research, legal analysis, and Black feminist theory. At the heart of the dissertation lies an exploration of how sex education has functioned as a mechanism of racial definition. Through the incisive lens of Black feminist analysis, the researcher uncovers the striking nexus between moral panics surrounding the sexuality of (white) children and the underlying anxieties over white demographic and economic decline. Delving deeper, the project probes this connection, elucidating how sex education legislation frequently serves as an instrument within a broader political strategy aimed at policing, defining, and solidifying racial and sexual hierarchies. In a political moment where ideological battles seek to suppress discussions of racial and sexual identity allegedly to protect (white) children, this study emphasizes the urgency in understanding these legislative and cultural dynamics.

Dissertation Committee

Alexis Lothian (Co-chair), Iván A Ramos (Brown University, Co-chair), Christina Hanhardt, Eva Hageman, and Zenzele Isoke

Get Tickets

PhD Defence Elizabeth Nelson | The Embodiment and Empowerment of Wearable Self-Care Technology

The Embodiment and Empowerment of Wearable Self-Care Technology

Elizabeth Nelson is a PhD student in the department Biomedical Signals and Systems. (Co)Promotors are prof.dr. M.M.R. Hutten and prof.dr. M.L. Noordzij from the faculty EEMCS and dr. T. Verhagen from Amsterdam University.

The findings support that self care technologies do indeed create feelings of embodiment, empowerment, and adherence to stick to their health goals both in the short and long term. Researchers can utilize technology embodiment as a measurement instrument in longitudinal studies to see if individuals continue to embody the technology and what changes can improve constructs such as adherence. Researchers can also  develop or extend our predictive model enabling further insight. Parsimonious models like the one developed, can enable remarkable discovery in part because their small nature allows for extension. While we studied key variables within self-care technologies, there are still many aspects that could be of value, for instance: trust, involvement, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use, continuous intention, habit, compulsive IT use, motivational readiness, etc. Furthermore, while we did analyze some of the demographic differences between participants, there is still much that could be discovered. Differences in generations, genders or on specific inherent traits. What if for example, there are individuals who have a propensity for technology embodiment above their peers? There is still much to be discovered. Our multidimensional approach allowed us to address the problem statement, answer our research questions, and allow future research to build upon our discoveries. 

More events