On the moral grounds of professional argumentative talk: English-mediated talk in Iranian PhD dissertation defences

Abstract

This paper reports on two anomalous cases of intervention in two English-medium dissertation defence sessions in Iran. The first is an intervention by a co-supervisor to take side against his co-supervisor as well as to adversely retort to an examiner, pulling rank over him. The second case echoes frequent interventions by an examiner to defend the candidate against his co-examiner. The paper argues that behind this manifestation of such stark disagreements lies a moral judgement that overrides other considerations. While such interventions pose great challenges to the participants’ interpersonal relationships and lead to a great deal of face-loss and humiliation for the object of intervention, their practice is warranted by interveners to tackle a moral issue. The paper argues that invoking moral order in claims to specialised knowledge is an integral part of professional practice and are influential in the many ways that professional identities are co-constructed in situ.