Did any of you know who your examiners were going to be whilst you wrote up?

I do and its freaking me out, whenever I have to cite the bloke I'm thinking should I, rather than "Smith (2010) suggests that" put something like "Smith (2010) suggests, in a very eloquent way, because he is so wonderful, that.."

:$

I've been given a possibility of who my examiners will be (by no means confirmed) and as far as I know neither have published in the area.

======= Date Modified 01 Jul 2011 12:59:14 =======
I'm actually wondering if I should include some of my external examiner's work. I'll be making sure I'm more familiar with it than I am now by the time of my viva anyway as it is vaguely relevant.

If I'd have known who my inernal examiner was going to be from the start I might not have accepted her friend request on facebook!

Editted to actually answer your question- yes, my supervisor and I discussed it about 3 months ago.

I was aware of my examiners at the end of the writing up phase. Neither have published in my field, which actually spans two areas that I have linked in the experimental work and detailed in my thesis. I did manage to incorporate my externals review paper which has some relevance but in a matter of fact way. I have not cast any personal expression of how wonderful any reference is so that the external cannot take offence that I have not shown them favouritism. I think that as long as you are not shredding their work to pieces they should feel well respected by your inclusion of their work in your thesis. Well I hope that works for me, I guess I will find out soon enough!

Hey Sneaks! Yeah, I know who my examiners are- obviously, since my viva is so close to submission. To be honest, although my external is in the same broad field, her work isn't really relevant to my topic, so I haven't cited her at all through the whole thesis. I have been wondering whether I should somehow try to fit her work in with my discussion, but quite frankly it really isn't a good fit and I think she'd see it for what it is- a rather desperate attempt to suck up lol! I would just reference it as you would any other work, I think examiners will realise if you make a special effort. I mean obviously make sure you have a super-good understanding of what you cite etc, but I wouldn't go the whole hog and put bells on it! Best, KB

I would go with the first one. Most respectable examiners would not like to get some flattery like the second one. I have a feeling you'll get respectable examiners:-). I also think you can stick to the writing that's more coherent, rather than inserting some for-flattery-purposes-stuff.

======= Date Modified 01 Jul 2011 15:35:02 =======
Yes, not only did I know who they were, I actually knew them as my primary supervisor was friends with both. My external examiner was a leader in her field.

That said, the lead people in each field will know each other and unless there's a serious rivalry or the thesis is screwed up for whatever reason, the routine should be make sure the candidate doesn't submit untill the supervisor is 99% sure the outcome is only going to be minor corrections.

Provided the candidate doesn't screw up the viva, the minor corrections should really be a rubber stamping process.

However, you do get poor supervisors, poor subissions and people and students, supervisors and examiners who don't do what they're supposed to.

My external examiner was confirmed 2 months before I submitted. My internal changed after submission though. I didn't pay it any attention in my writing up. I also totally failed to read my external's recent (tangentially relevant) book :$ But just refer to them as you would any other academic in your references. Don't stress over them, or give them undue weight. Although it is a good sign if you have - naturally - read and referenced some of your external's work. I found I had done that without trying, including her PhD thesis which I'd looked at early on in my PhD.