Project defence questions & answers

In two minutes, what is your project about?

Problem, method, finding, recommendation — one sentence each. Never read from the slides.

Why did you choose this topic?

Give an academic reason (a gap) and a practical reason (a real problem you observed). Avoid 'my supervisor gave it to me'.

What is the problem statement of your study?

State the gap, who it hurts, and the evidence that it exists. Cite one or two sources.

What are your research objectives?

List them in the same order and wording as Chapter One. Panels check consistency.

What are your research questions and how do they map to your objectives?

Show a one-to-one match: objective 1 → question 1 → hypothesis 1 → finding 1.

What gap in the literature does your study fill?

Name two or three studies, say what each missed, then position yours.

Which theory underpins your study and why?

Name the theory, the proponent and year, its core assumption, and how it explains your variables.

Which of your cited authors disagrees with your findings?

Have one contrasting study ready and explain the difference by context, sample or method.

Why are some of your references older than ten years?

Justify seminal/foundational works; show you also used current sources from the last five years.

What is the difference between your conceptual and theoretical framework?

Theoretical = existing theory. Conceptual = your own diagram of variables and their relationships.

Why did you choose this research design?

Link design to your questions: descriptive for 'what', experimental for 'cause', qualitative for 'why'.

What is your population and how did you determine your sample size?

Name the formula (Taro Yamane, Krejcie & Morgan, Cochran), show the substitution, state the result.

Which sampling technique did you use and why?

Name it precisely and defend it against the alternative you rejected.

How did you validate your research instrument?

Face/content validity by supervisor and experts; reliability by a pilot test and Cronbach's alpha value.

What was your Cronbach's alpha and what does it mean?

Quote your figure and say anything from 0.70 upward is acceptable reliability.

Explain Table 4.x in your own words.

Read the value, say what it means for the variable, then link it to the hypothesis.

Was your hypothesis accepted or rejected, and on what basis?

Quote the test statistic, the p-value and the 0.05 decision rule.

What does an R-squared of that value tell us?

State the percentage of variation in the dependent variable explained by your model.

Do your findings agree with previous studies?

Name one study that agrees and one that differs, and explain the difference contextually.

Any surprising or contradictory result?

Never hide it. Present it and offer a reasoned explanation — panels reward honesty.

What is your original contribution to knowledge?

One sentence: new evidence, new context, new tool or new model. Be modest but specific.

What are the limitations of your study?

Give two or three genuine ones (sample size, geography, self-reported data) and say how you minimised them.

What would you do differently if you started again?

Show reflection, not regret: a wider sample, a mixed-method design, a longer data window.

What do you recommend, and to whom?

Every recommendation must trace back to a specific finding and name a responsible actor.

What further research should follow this work?

Suggest two clear next studies that your limitations naturally open up.