Part I Concepts
12.2 Acting as Opponent
Next we give some guidelines on how to act as an opponent, and how to prepare for opposition. Note that the opponent could be either a student or the examiner, and the guidelines are applicable for both.
12.2.1 How to Act as Opponent
To know how to behave as an opponent, it is useful to think about what the purpose of the defence-opposition part of a presentation is. The point is that the presented work should be examined critically, so that the arguments presented by the speaker can be tested in a discussion. The opponent asks questions which the presenter should answer, so that the examiner can judge whether the presenter can defend the work. If the presenter can reply successfully with good arguments, this generally convinces the examiner that the work is solid and can withstand critical examination.
However, this does not mean that the opponent should ask questions that are critical in a negative sense, i.e. the opponent should not simply criticise the work.
The fact is that no matter how solid and good a project is, it is relatively easy to find something negative to say about it. Rather, the opponent should think of the questions as having the purpose, not of criticising, but of testing the strength and solidity of the presenter’s arguments. In other words, acting as opponent does not mean that you should hope to “win” a “battle” by being mean or aggressive. If you ask a difficult question, and the presenter returns with an excellent, insightful and intelligent answer, then you as opponent should think of that as a successful outcome. You have done your job and asked a good question, and the fact that the presenter also had a good answer is good for him or her. In addition, it is also good for you and the audience since you have all gained a new perspective on the pre- sented work.
Another pitfall of acting as opponent is that it is easy to fall into a pattern where one merely tries to show off one’s own intelligence and deep understanding of the work, rather than asking relevant questions. It is therefore important to keep in mind that the purpose is to test the presenter’s knowledge. The questions should be short,
direct and to the point, so that no time is wasted. As much time as possible should be devoted to the presenter spelling out the arguments in defence of the work.
To be able to ask good questions, it is necessary to read the whole report very carefully, and prepare a set of questions beforehand. Some tips for how this can be done are listed in Sect. 12.2.2. However, the fact that you have all the questions pre- pared beforehand does not mean that you should keep to those questions solely. It is also necessary to listen very attentively to the presentation. Quite often, something that was unclear in the report becomes clarified during the presentation, so that questions can be dropped from the prepared list. It is useful to keep this in mind while preparing, and to add more questions than you think there will be time to ask, so that you have some “backup” questions to replace those that are answered in the presentation.
12.2.2 Preparing for Opposition
Here follows a set of guidelines for how a report can be scrutinised, in preparation for the opposition. The guidelines follow approximately the same order as most reports are structured (see Chap. 14 for a discussion of report structure). The guide- lines consist of a set of questions that can be useful for the opponent to ask while reading the report. The list is obviously not complete, but includes questions on the most important aspects to consider.
Problem statement
● Has the author explained the problem that is to be investigated in a clear and understandable way?
● Has the author provided convincing arguments for the need to investigate this problem?
● Has the author provided convincing arguments that conducting the investigation will lead to the possibility of obtaining a solution, or increasing our understanding of the problem domain?
Aims and objectives
● Has the author identified a specific aim to be achieved in the project?
● Is the identified aim explained in a clear and understandable way?
● Has the author derived a list of specific objectives from the aim?
● Are the objectives presented in a clear and structured way?
● Do the objectives support the aim, i.e. will fulfilling all the objectives lead to the aim being achieved?
Methods
● Has the author clearly identified and explained the methods that could poten- tially be used in the investigation?
● Has the author provided an insightful discussion of advantages and disadvan- tages of each potential method for the investigation?
12.2 Acting as Opponent 103
● Has the author clearly stated which method (or methods) was selected for the investigation?
● Has the author provided convincing arguments for the selected method(s)?
● Has the author described clearly how the selected method(s) will be applied?
Data
● Has the author presented the collected data in a clear, understandable, systematic and correct way?
● Is the collected data sufficient, given the stated aims and objectives of the project?
Analysis
● Has the author made a thorough and systematic analysis of the data obtained?
● Is the analysis described in a clear and understandable way?
● If the data are quantitative, has the author applied significance tests or other numerical evaluation techniques in a relevant and correct way?
● Has the author evaluated the stated aims and objectives in the light of the data obtained?
Conclusions
● Has the author provided conclusions that are relevant, given the stated aims and objectives?
● If the work contains one or more hypotheses, does the author draw conclusions about whether these hypotheses are supported or falsified by the results?
● Has the author provided valid arguments for the stated conclusions?
Discussion and future work
● Has the author discussed the work in an insightful way, and thereby placed the work into a wider context?
● Has the author identified relevant and plausible continuations of the work?
Overall assessment
● Were the objectives of the project fulfilled?
● Was the aim of the project reached?
● Has the project furthered our understanding of the problem investigated?
● Will this work be useful in the future?
● Is the report well structured and understandable?
● Is the report well written?
Additional questions
● Does the author have a critical viewpoint, i.e. have sources used in the work been critically evaluated by the author?
● Have terms of importance to the report been clearly defined?
● Is the use of terms and definitions consistent throughout the report?
● Is it clear when something is the author’s own work, and when it is someone else’s work?
● Have all sources used by the author been clearly identified by use of literature references, and have the references been made in a correct way?
● Are you aware of any additional relevant literature on the topic, which has not been used and cited by the author?
● Are you aware of any work which closely resembles the work done in the project, but which has not been identified by the author?