I have to return my UiT computer in a few minutes, but I just wanted to share the news that I just received via e-mail. The fourth article – which I wrote together with my three supervisors – received quite a bit of criticism from the first reviewer at College & Research Libraries, but the second reviewer started by writing:

“This is the most important library science article I have ever read”!

The journal decided to accept the article with minor revisions. On my very last day in Tromsø! And this is the very last thing I’m writing on this computer. 🙂

More to come after my return to Hamar…

I’m now Dr. Nierenberg!

The day before the defense, I practiced the trial lecture with four members of my research group, and I was a total wreck. I was incredibly stressed and nervous and couldn’t stop the tears. I was terrified that the same thing would happen the next day at the defense! Everyone said that this is normal, and that I’d feel fine tomorrow. And luckily, they were right!

After a beautiful display of northern lights that evening, I actually slept nearly 6 hours. When I woke up, I just knew that I was going to nail it, and that this was going to be one of the best days of my life. It was the total opposite feeling than the day before, as my colleagues had predicted.

When the time came to enter the auditorium and present the trial lecture, I was ready. I wasn’t even nervous! I knew that everyone there and online was rooting for me, and that if there were technical issues, I could just ask for help (which I did). I was totally focused on what I was saying and felt confident.

The theme of my trial lecture was Barriers and enablers to information literacy development: What practices are recommended for librarians and other instructors? I told how I was going to approach the question, which was to talk about barriers and enablers at different levels (see diagram below).

Although I realized that the question was intended for higher education, I decided to also include barriers and enablers for society at large, and mentioned things like the situation in the US where books about LGBTQ issues and race are being banned in public and school libraries, and where librarians are ordered not to help patrons find information about abortion in certain states. It was somewhat political, but I couldn’t resist mentioning how these things affect access to information and freedom of speech, without which it’s difficult to be information literate.

After the trial lecture were ca. 20 minutes of questions from opponents. It was more like a discussion than a test of my knowledge, and I enjoyed our exchange. We then had a 1-hour lunch break before the defense of my dissertation.

I started the defense with a 35-minute lecture with the main results of my research.

This lecture was at the level of the opponents, as opposed to the trial lecture where the intended audience was at the undergraduate level. Then followed 2 1/2 hours of questions and discussion with opponents. The first opponent – Jane Secker – used 60 minutes, and the second – Diane Schallert – used 45 minutes. I somehow remained calm and focused the whole time, although I apparently didn’t answer the last couple of questions as well as the first. Standing and concentrating for many hours is hard work!

The opponents started with general comments, many of which were positive. Jane Secker said that my research was important and that my measures might eventually be used internationally. Both opponents suggested topics for additional research, sometimes hinting that they wished to somehow be involved. I felt proud and flattered, and that my research was important and would perhaps be influential.

Many of the questions they posed were related to the comments they’d made when they evaluated my dissertation, so I was prepared for them. I was ready for some of the other questions as well, since I’d been practicing with possible questions on flashcards for over a year. But there were of course some that were harder, that I wasn’t prepared for, especially the one about epistemology. I think that was the one where I answered, “I’m drawing a blank here.” Oh well. But somehow it was still OK – I knew at that point that I was going to pass, and they don’t expect me to know everything! I felt more prepared for Jane’s questions than Diane’s.

I only got nervous during the short break where the opponents concurred on their decision, whether my defense was worthy of a PhD. That’s when the significance of the decision made me shaky with nerves and excitement. And when they returned with the positive verdict, I was overjoyed! It felt like a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders and I felt incredibly proud!

The audience stood and applauded, many with tears in their eyes (at least I wasn’t the only one!). “Was it that bad?” I first wondered. 😉 The next minutes are a blur of tears, hugs, photos, and total joy.

Then came the bubbles. I’d waited 4 years for that first glass of champagne!!

The small reception afterwards, with tapas and bubbles, was organized by the Faculty of Health Sciences. It was lovely! And then came the party! But I’ll save describing these wonderful celebrations until another post, when I have more time.

So this was Part 1 of one of the best days in my life! 🙂 Part 2 – with details of the reception, party, and speeches – is soon to come. I’ll write it after I’ve moved back to Hamar, after four amazing years in Tromsø. <3

Time is running out and there’s a constant clump in my chest. I have too much to do in the next 6 days (actually 5 now, when I look at the clock). I won’t be able to prepare enough before the big day. The trial lecture that I’m making is taking me too long. I had a total meltdown on Thursday because I thought it wasn’t good enough. Luckily Tove and a friend were there for me. This feeling of panic suddenly comes over me and I feel like I can’t breathe. Everyone says it’s totally normal to feel this way just before the defense. Why do we subject ourselves to this? And why can’t I be confident in myself? Everyone else is confident that I’ll do fine in the defense, but I’m not. The moving truck is coming to pick up my stuff the evening before my defense. I haven’t packed yet. And I don’t want to leave Tromsø. ARGH!

In Norway, as part of the public defense of a PhD, the candidate begins by holding a 30-minute “trial lecture” on a topic decided by the committee. Candidates receive this topic 2 weeks before the defense, which for me is today! The topic should be relevant to the dissertation, and is often something that the opponents think was not covered adequately.

OK – it just arrived in my inbox. I’m very happy with the topic! It’s pretty much what I’d guessed it would be, because that’s what is lacking in my research, although it was part of my plan to do more research on this topic at the start of the project. I just didn’t get that far! So it’s actually a perfect topic for me.

I’ll get started making my trial lecture now! 🙂

I got the best email ever at 10:02 this morning: “The committee has unanimously approved the thesis and finds it worthy of being defended for the degree Philosophiae Doctor. Congratulations!” 🙂

I’m SO relieved and SO happy! I got quite a scare 2 days ago when I received the peer review from a journal for the 4th paper in my dissertation, but thankfully, the committee evaluating the entire dissertation was satisfied with my work. Phew! What a roller-coaster of feelings in just 2 days!

Until now, I hadn’t revealed the names of the members of the assessment committee for my dissertation, but now I can. 🙂

Jane Secker is Europe’s information literacy guru, and one of the most knowledgeable and enthusiastic (and fun) people in the field. Diane Schallert is an educational psychologist, and was one of Tove’s mentors when she did her PhD. I’m so honored to have these two as my opponents, and I look forward to our discussions on Nov. 25th! I only wish that they could be here in person! Our university, however, has limited funds at the moment and can’t afford to bring them here. The leader of the committee, Espen Bjørkedal, is one of my wonderful colleagues at the Department of Psychology here at UiT, and will be the only committee member physically present.

I received 6 pages of comments from the committee. This will be helpful for me in preparing for the defense. They first summarized the findings of each of the 4 papers and the extended summary, and then commented on some areas that need addressing. For example: “Although the work is presented as a mixed methods project, the qualitative component is such a minor component that one might reject the use of the term mixed methods.” So this is a great clue for me – they’ll probably want to discuss this at the defense.

Positive comments include: (1) “The summary begins with a relatively brief foray into three literatures… with the first topic representing a particularly masterful depiction of the definitional, measurement, and theoretical issues involved in information literacy.” (2) “The project as a whole makes an important and innovative contribution to knowledge in the field…”

It’s now fairly certain that I’ll get my PhD, as almost no one makes such horrendous errors at the defense that they fail at this point. I’m so delighted and feel like all the hard work has paid off! Thank you so much again to my amazing supervisors for making this possible! Tove and I were online together when I opened the email this morning. 🙂 And Torstein has been so sweet today – every time he passes by my office he stops, with a huge smile on his face and laughter in his eyes, looking like the happiest and proudest person on the planet. 🙂 And Mariann has sent me the warmest congratulations. How lucky I am. 🙂

Yesterday, I received the peer review of the final paper in my PhD, which I wrote together with my 3 supervisors. This manuscript presents the results of my research, where I followed a group of psychology students over 3 years to track their development in information literacy knowledge, skills, and attitudes, including changes in their perceptions of themselves as information literate individuals. This was the jewel in the crown of my PhD research. I knew it was a long shot to get this manuscript published in this particular journal, but I wanted to try anyway, despite it being over 2000 words too long . (They make exceptions, they say…)

The review I received however was much more worrisome and disheartening than I could have imaged, although it began with “Please don’t get too discouraged. I think you are really on to some interesting research which is why I spent so much time on this review.” So, although they are ultimately interested in the manuscript, we’d have to change tons of things, many of which underlie my entire dissertation – which I still haven’t gotten the verdict on! For example, I represent knowledge, skills, and attitudes with the words knowing, doing, and feeling. These are fundamental elements of my thesis. Additionally, I inform (parts of) my research with transformative learning theory. So imagine my dismay when I read these comments from the reviewer:

“I urge you to strongly consider removing your argument and framework for knowing, doing, and feeling altogether from this manuscript, as well as transformational learning.”

What if the committee evaluating my dissertation feels the same way?! It’s one thing to have to edit the manuscript, but it’s too late to edit the dissertation! ARGH! So now I’m totally stressed out and worried that I won’t get my PhD! The angst feels like a clump in my chest. I’m convinced that within the next 3 days (that’s the deadline), I’ll find out that my 300-page dissertation has been rejected. YIKES!! I’ve been fairly calm until now, and actually believed that my work was quite good, but that relaxed feeling has now evaporated. I have little confidence at this point. 🙁

There are three possible assessments for the dissertation:

1. It is considered worthy of being defended in a defense.
2. In its current form, it is not considered worthy of being defended. A revised thesis can be assessed within 3 months.
3. It is rejected.

I know that it doesn’t help to worry – it won’t affect the result – but it’s hard to avoid. Tove, who’s an expert in thinking positively, says this was our “Trick-or-treat”. The treat is that the journal may eventually publish the manuscript (albeit in another form, and perhaps as 2 articles), and the trick is to break the code in editing it.

Ugh. The party on Nov. 25th, after the defense, is already planned. And 5 days after that, when I was planning on being finished, I’ll be moving from wonderful Tromsø (don’t want to think about it – can’t even write about it yet). Failing is NOT part of my plan.