Three days after sending a draft to his committee, a doctoral student received two sets of comments. One member wanted the theory chapter expanded with two more models. The other wrote: “The theory section is too long; cut it back and focus on the results.” He spent a week unable to start, because pleasing one meant contradicting the other.
Working with committees, whether an advisory committee, a progress review panel, independent readers or final examiners, is a skill in its own right. It has less to do with subject expertise and more to do with reading, sorting and responding to feedback systematically. Names and roles vary with each institution's regulations, but the working principles are much the same.
Reading feedback: do not reply in the first 24 hours
Comments on years of work easily feel like an attack, and replies written in that moment tend to be defensive. A safer routine:
- First read: just take it in. No notes, no replies.
- Wait a day.
- Second read with a pen: split every comment onto its own numbered line.
- Restate each comment in your own words: what is this person actually worried about?
Step four matters more than it looks. “The theory section is too long” may really mean “I can't see how the theory connects to your research question.” Fixing that root problem often satisfies both of the apparently conflicting reviewers.
Sort the comments
| Type | Example | How to handle it |
|---|---|---|
| Small, clear fixes | Citation errors, missing units, unclear sentences | Fix immediately and log it in the response table |
| Explanation needed | “Why this scale?” | Add the explanation to the text itself, not just to your email reply |
| Additional analysis | “Check this across age groups” | Weigh time and cost; do it if feasible, otherwise explain and discuss it as a limitation |
| Major structural or argumentative change | “Reorganise chapter 3 around the second question” | Discuss with your main supervisor before acting |
| Disagreement | A comment based on a misreading or at odds with the design | Explain politely with reasons, and revise the text so nobody misreads it again |
The response table: your most important tool
For every round of written feedback, build a three-column table:
- Comment: quoted or faithfully summarised, numbered, with the reviewer's name.
- Response: what you did, or why you did not.
- Location of change: chapter, page, paragraph.
Useful phrasing:
- “Thank you. We have added an explanation of why this scale was chosen in section 3.2, page 54.”
- “We agree this is an important limitation. As the dataset lacks detailed age data, further analysis was not possible; we now discuss this in section 6.3.”
- “We considered this suggestion carefully. However, because…, we have kept the original design and added a justification on page 61 to make the reasoning clearer.”
A good response table lets a reviewer check your changes in ten minutes instead of rereading the entire thesis to find them. Readers whose time you save are more inclined to sign off.
Handling contradictory feedback
- Look for the shared concern behind both comments, as in the theory example above.
- If they genuinely conflict, take both to your main supervisor and propose one option with reasons. Do not quietly pick one and let the “ignored” member discover it in a meeting.
- Record it in the response table: “Comments 4 and 7 suggest different directions; after discussion with the supervisor we chose… because…”.
- Where possible, send a joint email so the members can see each other's views and agree.
Keeping committee members informed between reviews
Many students only contact committee members other than their main supervisor at review time. By then those members see the work for the first time in months and raise major issues at a stage when they are hard to fix. Better:
- Send a short periodic update, one page, on progress and key decisions.
- Consult each member early on their area of expertise, for example asking your statistics specialist to review the analysis plan before data collection.
- Remember they are busy: specific questions, short documents, reasonable deadlines.
Corrections after the defence
Most theses come back with corrections after the defence, from minor to major. That is normal. A tidy process:
- Straight after the defence, write down every requested change while it is fresh, then check it against the official report.
- If anything is unclear, ask via your supervisor or the committee secretary in the first week.
- Build a response table as above, with a column for the committee's requirement.
- Clear the small fixes first to shrink the list quickly, then block uninterrupted time for the larger ones.
- Check the correction deadline in your regulations and work backwards, allowing time for whoever must check and approve them.
Things to avoid
- Long email arguments with committee members. A short meeting usually resolves things faster.
- Silent changes that are not logged: reviewers do not see them and raise the same point again next round.
- Agreeing to everything to finish faster: the thesis becomes a patchwork of inconsistent demands, and at the defence you must justify changes you do not believe in.
- Treating feedback as a personal verdict. Feedback targets the text, and the text can always be better.
The next time a round of feedback arrives, build the response table with every comment numbered and sorted before you change a single word. Simply seeing the whole list on one page makes the job far less daunting.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
How should I respond to thesis committee feedback?
Split every comment onto its own line, sort them by type, then build a response table showing each comment, what you did or why not, and where the change is. This lets reviewers check quickly.
What if two committee members give contradictory feedback?
Look for the shared concern behind both, discuss with your main supervisor, choose one option with reasons and record it in your response table. Where possible, let members see each other’s views.
Can I disagree with an examiner’s comment?
Yes, if you have good grounds. Explain politely with reference to your design or evidence, and revise the text so the point is clearer to future readers.
What do I need to do for corrections after my viva?
Note every requested change right after the defence, check it against the official report, clarify anything unclear, build a response table and check the correction deadline in your regulations.
Should I contact committee members between formal reviews?
Yes, with brief updates and specific questions in their areas of expertise. Early feedback is much easier to act on than major comments at the final stage.
