Expecting ad hominem criticism in a thesis defense: How to prepare well for this?

Question

To be short, I have a bad relationship with my advisor. He told me my research ideas are wrong and that he was not convinced of them without giving reasons. I proceeded against his opinion and presented the work at a highly selective conference in the field and was encouraged to submit a publication by the experts there. In addition, he was neglecting me all along but I had support from other professors from outside universities. So I did very briefly thank him in the acknowledgement section and generously thanked those who did the support. He lately disparaged a colleague's work in her public defense, after not giving her any guidance or support nor comments on her drafts.

I feel it coming, that he is going to try to make my public defense hell, and I am expecting lots of adhominem criticism. What are some tips that you suggest to stand mentally strong in such a situation, and keep it professional? For example, how did you handle a destructive/unfair criticism in a presentation?

Note: My examiners are all male friends with my advisors.

Update: I believe there are 2 kinds of criticism: constructive and destructive. Constructive, that which is based on truth and reason and delivered in such a way to benefit the listener. There are 2 kinds of destructive criticism that which is based on truth but, delivered in such a way to hurt the listener and undermine their wellbeing and the other is based on falsehood/claims and delivered with ill intentions to undermine the listener's wellbeing, hurt their reputation .. etc. Ad hominem criticism is one form of the latter.

I am preparing for the bad scenarios, as well as the good. I have valid reasons to expect such type of destructive criticism. I want to defend myself and reputation in a rational ptofessional way, but questioning when to say "thanks for your opinion" and when to rationally refute it. Like if someone says "this is a trivial idea" without proof, I'd not let that pass and tell him "thanks for your opinion" and I'd ask for a proof for this claim and I'd support the case "that it is not a trivial idea" based on truth, and others approval who are experts.

The professors who helped are from US universities, they cannot be present. However, I mention their names in the ack., and those who thought highly of my work and they are well-known in the field.

I am not in Europe nor the US.

Addressing the comments asking about why I stayed with an unsupportive advisor: Yes. It is a mistake on my part, I should have left. However, other available options at the time seemed equal, and I am generally an independent student and didn't mind the independence granted to me in effect to his behaviour, and thought that if I did a really good job, I could change his mind. Anyway, I learned through the experience and gained new connections from respected universities who would open doors for me in the future. I know that I did a mistake but it is not as bad as that of a person who is 3x my age, with tenure and more life experiences. Also I decided to not dwell on past mistakes, and tortue myself for them. I just want to get out with minimal losses.

Answer 1

Prepare to be as objective as possible. Prepare to not respond emotionally to unfair criticism. You cannot stop your advisor from making it clear that they dislike your work, but you can be professional about it. Focus on your work – if it is sound and interesting, the examiners will have a hard time bringing up reasonable criticism without seeming nit-picky. Likely, they have a reputation to lose.

I have been in the audience of a thesis defense which acted out similar to the scenario you are fearing. The candidate succeeded by agreeing with reasonable criticism, explaining the soundness of their approach, and countering unreasonable objections.

Answer 2

At least where I am from, the thesis advisor has a very strong influence on whether a student graduates. That's one of their primary roles: to determine that a student under their supervision has satisfactorily completed an apprenticeship with them and is ready to be a more independent researcher.

That said, the role is not entirely theirs, and that's why there is a thesis committee. Usually, though, that committee of examiners is there to bring more rigor to the table, not to overrule the advisor (though it may happen in special cases). While you describe support from "professors from outside universities" I do not get the sense that these outside supporters are the same people as the male friends of your advisor on your committee.

If your advisor plans to come to your defense with ad hominem criticism, I think refuting their specific criticisms are far less important than the demonstration by this activity that they do not support your defense. If they plan to vote against your passing, that's all that matters, and it's extremely unlikely that you will be able to convince them in the moment if you have not convinced them until now, no matter how you prepare.

I would not describe stating that your "research ideas are wrong and that he was not convinced of them" is an ad hominem. Ad hominem criticisms are those that target some off-topic trait or motivation. In the context of research, however, the burden is on the person bringing the ideas and convincing their audience. "I am not convinced" is not ad hominem. Be prepared to convincingly demonstrate your research. Be aware of the possible (academic) criticisms of your work and its weaknesses and be ready to respond to those.

Answer 3

If the defense is public then I'd suggest that you have as many supporters of your work as you can present, even if they can't vote. You said you got help from other professors. It would be good and advisable if some of them could be present. I would invite all of those people as well as some students that you trust.

For preparation, you should focus on the work and being able to answer any and all relevant questions about the work, including on any shortcomings. But you should forget about trying to prepare for unwarranted attacks.

In my view, if a professor, especially an advisor, attacks a student in public it reflect badly and only on themself. There should be no place for that in academia. You may need to simply be silent in some situations or respond with "thank you for your views".

Some questions about "shortcomings" are actually an opportunity to speak of future work. But be prepared for questions about methodology as well as results and impact. Don't go beyond what you can demonstrate as true.

Answer 4

If he asks a question, answer whatever question was asked.

If a comment does not contain a question: Nod as politely as possible with eye contact and say "Thank you" as honestly as you can.

If someone asks, say you are glad to hear and grow from criticism. Say it honestly.

Practice that until it comes out as honest. It's very hard to work against that with ad hominem attacks.

Answer 5

Relax a bit, without the consent of your advisor you will never see a defense. That means he thinks you are at a level to graduate. Also, the defense committee does not judge the thesis and the student, they also, internally, judge the advisor. Allowing you to present, he is also staking his reputation. Thus, I don't believe he will attack too harshly. Probably he will be snarky but don't compare his actions against someone else's student, he must be at your side. Remember your failure is his failure to guide you.

Let me finish with this: I am more afraid of my student's defenses than my own PhD defense back then. I make sure they are ready before allowing them to present.

Answer 6

In additional to the other helpful comments, some practical advice to get through this:

• Try stacking the place with people who like you and cheer for you. If the audience is sufficiently positive towards, any of his criticisms will come across as misplaced to any other committee member

• Stay calm. Do not get emotional or vindictive under any circumstances at all.

• Keep to the protocol and stick to it.

• Be intellectually ready to answer or deflect any criticism. This requires intellectual ability and some rhetorical jinjitsu, of course, but I assume at this stage you have got what it takes for that.

Answer 7

Depending on the country (and I believe this applies to most), an advisor is not supposed to argue with or question you during your thesis defense. The reason is simple: as your thesis advisor, they should have raised these questions before the defense. This is at least the practice in public defenses in France. During the defense, a PhD advisor is usually expected to briefly discuss the candidate’s career path (and sometimes share anecdotes).

If this is not the case for you, it’s important to remain calm and respond with objective arguments. Even if they appear hostile, you’ll be in a better position if you avoid engaging in their tactics. Since it’s a public defense, there will likely be other colleagues in the room. If you remain composed and present your scientific arguments clearly, any hostility is likely to come across as "ridiculous" to the audience.