phd viva nightmare

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. here three students relate phd nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

For all the efforts in recent years to improve the doctoral experience for students, Times Higher Education still receives a steady supply of horror stories from PhD candidates. To the authors of such submissions, the system appears, at best, indifferent to them and, at worst, outright exploitative. Here, we present three such examples – all of whose writers, tellingly, feel the need to remain anonymous, given the power dynamics involved.

Perhaps such tales are inevitable. Perhaps, even with the best will in the world, there will always be supervisor-supervisee relationships that just don’t function; expectations that, however heartfelt, just aren’t realistic; supervisors who just can’t find the time to give the kind of detailed supervision that they would like to give, and that students feel they need.

But perhaps there is still more that could be done to ensure that this most intense and crucial of academic relationships doesn’t end up on the rocks. In that spirit, two academics with strong views on the matter – one from science and one from the humanities – set out how they think the supervisory task should best be approached. Their guidance may not amount to a stake through the heart of the PhD horror franchise: as B-movie history amply demonstrates, good advice is not always heeded. But the exposure of the problems to further sunlight may at least slow the drip-drip of blood on to the doctoral carpet.

I had never felt so helpless in my life. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up

When I was offered a fully funded doctorate in a UK environmental science laboratory, I was delighted and accepted instantly. I assumed that the experience of working in an international environment and the many transferable skills that I would learn would be a stepping stone to an exciting career beyond the academy. Little did I know that what I had signed up for would destroy not only my career plans but also my passion for the subject, my ambition and my self-confidence.

My supervisors turned out to have limited knowledge of the topic that they had so glamorously advertised, and the university lacked the facilities and machinery that I needed. Left with precious little guidance, I was obliged to work with methods that would do very little to enhance my career. An obvious solution was to set up an external collaboration, but my supervisors were reluctant to sanction it. They didn’t seem to want to share the glory with anyone else, but the environment that they created meant that there was never likely to be much glory to share anyway.

It didn’t help, either, that I am female. My male supervisors, in a male-dominated field, constantly made belittling remarks that they would never have made to a male student, remarks that led me to doubt my own capabilities. My doctorate became a living nightmare, and, after a year of ineffectively trying to solve the issues directly with my supervisors, I decided to take things further.

Because the head of my department had just resigned, I sought help from the university’s students’ union. But joint meetings with a union representative and my supervisors seemed to go nowhere, culminating in accusations that I was “making up” the issues. The union subsequently managed to arrange a meeting with the head of the graduate school, but, nearly six weeks after our meeting, he deemed my case too complex and I was ultimately told to solve my issues with my supervisors directly!

I had never felt so helpless in my life, and I was amazed at how unconcerned the university apparently was about student well-being. After months of more meetings with my supervisors and the union, I was contacted by the departmental postgraduate tutor, who expressed “concern” about my progress. This offered me a ray of hope. However, as usual, things got worse rather than better. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up. I was offered an additional female supervisor, but, while welcome, that would have done little to solve the other issues.

I was given an ultimatum. I had two weeks to decide if I wanted to continue with my PhD and “accept” things as they were. The alternative was to leave – without any form of diploma or certificate for my two years of work (which included the publication of a first-author paper).

My last throw of the dice was to contact my funding body. However, my entire funding had already been transferred to my university, so there was little that it could do to help me. Thus I had no other choice but to quit and to watch as the university swept my case under the carpet, documenting my withdrawal as the result of “personal and health issues”.

Although the experience has cost me a lot, it also taught me a considerable amount. I learned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true. I learned not to take my rights for granted. I learned the value of having expectations, commitments and offers put down in writing. I learned to trust no one.

I also learned a lot about how higher education institutions function. I discovered that they will do whatever it takes to cover up their own mishaps to save their reputation, even if it comes at the cost of destroying a young person’s career.

Anecdotally, cases similar to mine are becoming increasingly common. In recent months, there have been multiple ongoing cases at my former university, including more withdrawals. However, the university just recruits more students to make up for the losses.

It is well known that PhD students are widely seen by academics as a cheap workforce. But to be treated with such little respect by the people who are supposed to foster your career and help you to succeed is just not right in any workplace.

The author prefers to remain anonymous.

If you want to supervise and mentor with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department

The power that you as a supervisor have over a student or postdoc is immense. Your actions, whether they are kindnesses, temper tantrums or intimacies, have the potential to shake up trainees to a much greater degree than their actions can affect you. And, most of the time, trainees have no way to solve conflicts with you if you won’t negotiate. Hence, it is your responsibility not to abuse your power.

But it takes integrity and clarity not to do so. Doctoral supervision is challenging. Your first difficulty is in acknowledging and getting beyond unrealistic expectations of your students that you might not even know you have. In science, new supervisors often imagine a lab filled with idealised workers: miniature versions of themselves, who churn out data and submit manuscripts. So when their charges don’t do exactly what they expect, they feel frustrated.

You might also observe that other supervisors allow their people to flounder, or even to fail. And even though you don’t want that, you have never had the lessons in personnel management that might ensure it doesn’t happen. Academic departments and institutions may or may not provide support to guide supervisors and students in building effective relationships.

If you want to supervise and mentor students with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department. Nor can you assume, as a scientist, that your research group will passively absorb your good intentions. You must consider what you haven’t been trained in graduate school to consider: your own ethics, morals and sense of justice. Accept what institutional help exists, but if the policies at your institution render trainees expendable, you must develop the courage to stand up to power.

And then you build a framework for your students in which your ethics, rules and expectations are clear. For example, if you want your people to know that you are concerned with their professional futures, don’t let them drift without guidance. Evaluate each person regularly, and give feedback and compassionate criticism – not just on results but also on communication skills, presentation skills, time management and other characteristics of a successful professional. Keep notes on your meetings and follow up on what you and the trainee have discussed. Check in frequently and provide multiple opportunities for discussion and interaction. Be present.

Authorship and project choice are other vital areas where your policies can reflect your intentions to have a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. How are projects chosen? Do you actively foster collaboration, putting new people to work with more established lab members in a way that both parties benefit from, and will you continue to guide and monitor those collaborations? Do you intend to compete with your own trainees when they leave, or will you allow them to take their projects with them? Who writes the papers? How is authorship decided? Will you protect your people in authorship disputes with collaborating groups, or will you sacrifice a trainee to keep last authorship for yourself?

Create a group manual, with protocols, policy and helpful information, being specific about whatever you consider to be important for students to know. Include information about where trainees can find help if they have a personal or project issue – including problems with you.

You also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable conflicts between lab members. Learn not to fear it, as that fear can mould you into a little dictator and keep you from understanding what people need. Have a process to work through conflicts (look up “interest-based conflict resolution”), as fair process often carries more weight with people even than achieving the outcome they wanted. Explain that process to your students, too: conflict resolution is one of the most valuable skills you can pass on. Don’t run from emotions – research is an emotional business – but learn to control your own emotional responses so that they don’t interfere with your communications.

Talk about ethical behaviour, and model that behaviour. If you expect your people to meet deadlines, you should be on time for meetings and return manuscripts and phone calls predictably. If you hear someone making a racist or sexist remark, correct the person: doing nothing will send the message that such behaviour is OK by you.

It is also important not to let yourself, or anyone else, become isolated. Make a point of introducing your students to your former students and postdocs – as well as to experts in their fields – when they visit or when you encounter them at meetings. Model the value of mentors by having mentors yourself, for personal and professional advice. Have the confidence to encourage trainees to have other role models and mentors, especially if they move into a project area in which you aren’t expert: having mentors is the start of building a web of relationships that will support trainees all through their lives.

But students must also be activists. Some supervisors eat their young, and some institutions allow it. As a student, you have the greatest level of control before you accept a position, so look for a place where you are respected and can do the work that you believe in. Ask other students questions about the scholarship and mentorship of particular supervisors before you make the decision to sign on. Once there, find role models, and get to know your community. The more you are integrated with others, the more people there are to help should your relationship with your supervisor or your project go badly.

It is unfortunate and unfair that students are not always protected, and that leaving might be the only solution to a toxic situation, but that is the harsh reality. So, as a student, doing all that you can to ensure that you will be appreciated and fulfilled in the position you accept is worth the effort.

Kathleen Barker is clinical assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She is the author of At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported

Tom sent his supervisor a chapter of his PhD thesis to read six weeks ago. He can’t start on the next chapter until he receives feedback on what he has already done. But he has had no response despite chasing up his supervisor – with whom he gets on well personally – several times. Indeed, he has not even received an acknowledgement of his email. And he knows that when he does finally receive a reply, there will be no mention of the delay, let alone an apology. He knows that because this has all happened before.

But this time the situation plays out even more egregiously. After Tom has waited for two more weeks, he finally hears back – a full two months after his initial email. But his supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of his chapter, ignoring everything between.

Tom is frustrated, but he thanks his supervisor for the feedback and does not challenge her over the delay. How can he when he is entirely dependent on her to get him through the PhD submission process and to supply a good reference for subsequent job applications? Besides, sustaining a complaint would come down to his word against hers – and she is senior and well respected in the department and the university. No one would believe him. And even if they did, would it really be worth the hassle of getting another supervisor allocated to him in his final year – and, in the process, acquiring a bad reputation in the department for being the one who “made a fuss”?

So Tom soldiers on. Eventually, after much delay, he finishes his thesis. But is it ready for submission? He points out to his supervisor that he does not believe that the thesis has been checked properly, but she tells him to stop worrying, to take responsibility for his work and to be confident in its quality and in his ability to defend it. So he takes the plunge and submits. But he spends the next two months worrying that he might fail, rendering the past four years of hard work a complete waste of time.

This is a true story. And it takes only a few cursory searches of online PhD forums to see how common such scenarios are. PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported. Hence, even the most toxic student-supervisor relationships often persist long beyond the point of dysfunctionality, sometimes leaving the student with mental health problems.

I believe that this happens primarily because supervisors’ responsibilities are rarely clearly defined and because supervisors are not accountable to anyone for carrying them out. So I make the following recommendations:

• Training for supervisors must be compulsory
• Supervisors must be held accountable to someone senior in the department, and PhD students should be made aware of who that is
• Supervisors must be required to respond to their PhD students’ emails within three days, barring any type of leave
• Supervisors’ responsibilities need to be outlined clearly in a handbook that is available to both supervisors and students. It should also be made clear to students how much of their supervisors’ time each week or month is allocated to giving them feedback so that they are not made to feel like a burden
• Students must be assigned a mentor who is not close to their supervisor or in the same research team – ideally in another department altogether. This person can help to alleviate concerns and act as an intermediary when necessary
• There should be an anonymous procedure within each department that PhD students can use to complain or give feedback about their supervisor
• Supervisors should be formally encouraged to ask their students annually how they could better support them. This should be part of supervisors’ yearly appraisals.

In the absence of such steps, such stories as the one above will continue to write themselves over and over again.

If a relationship works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. Supervising PhDs, I have been directed along paths that I would not have discovered otherwise

There is no doubt in my mind that the best part of being an academic over the years has been supervising PhD students. I cannot remember how many I have supervised, but the number runs to well over 80, and I have examined even more than that.

I am still in touch with many former students and examinees, and have been delighted to follow their careers wherever they are in the world. If a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. I have learned so much from supervising PhDs, and have been directed along new paths that I would not have discovered otherwise. There have been occasions when a student would arrive in my office with a bag full of books that he or she felt I should read: a living demonstration of the fact that it is not always the supervisor who provides all the bibliographical information.

I always start by telling students three things: that I will read every word they write in draft and then in final copy; that if they can get me to approve the thesis, given how tough I am going to be with them, then they have a very good chance of getting it past the examiners; and that they should not be discouraged if they find that their work is shifting direction after a few months. Writing a humanities PhD is an organic process, and if ideas have not started to develop by the end of the first year, then something is going wrong. Supervisors are particularly important at this stage, to provide reassurance and to help the student move forward.

Supervising PhDs is rewarding because you can see the process of intellectual development unfolding before your eyes. But it is also an intensely time-consuming task. All the various calculations of hourly allocation for supervision are absurd: if you are going to supervise properly, then you have to be prepared to spend hours reading drafts and then talking to the student.

There are some supervisors who do not write anything on drafts, preferring to correct only a final version. I find this ridiculously unhelpful. The whole point of reading drafts is to give proper feedback, and in the case of international students this kind of detailed reading is essential. Academic writing courses help, but careful editing by a supervisor is vital.

Nor should a supervisor’s detailed corrections focus on content alone. They also need to address spelling, punctuation, style and structure. Sometimes I have proposed radical structural changes, such as moving material from a conclusion into the introduction and vice versa. Such suggestions can be responsibly made only after you do a final read-through of the whole thesis – and that final reading is essential because although you may have read individual chapters or sections over several years, only the student will have a clear idea of how they want it to fit together.

It is also important to provide a written summary of general points after reading each draft. I learned early on that trying to do this verbally does not work because a student is often anxious and so does not take everything in. An email with bullet points works best. It is also important to balance criticism with praise, so the summary should start out with something positive before moving on to the “however” part. But all criticism, however negative, should be presented in such a way as to offer solutions and to help the student with the next stage in writing.

One of the problems facing supervisors in the UK is that the hours they put in are never adequately acknowledged by university management. This is because the UK has had to try to catch up with the kind of structure for doctorates that operates in US universities, and often PhD students have been tagged on as extras to someone’s academic workload. In the humanities, there have also been (and remain) some curious ideas about the need for a supervisor to be a “specialist” in exactly the same area as the student. Not only can this impose undue pressures on specialists in popular fields, it is also conceptually misconceived. Supervision should take both student and supervisor down relatively unexplored paths.

When it comes to choosing an examiner, practices vary widely. I have heard colleagues state firmly that the student should have no input, but I consult with mine because it is important to find out whether they have been in contact with any potential examiners. Also, despite clear guidelines, some universities still do not appoint anyone to chair the viva, which means that if a student feels hard done by, there is no independent witness. That only makes the choice of examiner even more important.

I don’t understand why supervising PhDs should be seen as a chore, rather than as a unique opportunity to engage with the brightest minds of younger generations. My research would be so much poorer without the help that I have received, directly and indirectly, from my doctoral students.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the universities of Warwick and Glasgow.

The degree was not awarded. Yet years later I discovered evidence that the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

Some students cheat. That’s clear from numerous articles in the press. But is this a one-sided view? How often is the examiner’s performance questioned or subjected to independent scrutiny? For postgraduates in particular, this is no trivial matter: any bias or lack of honesty in an examiner can waste years of the candidate’s life and can degrade trust in the system.

My experience may not be typical, but it’s certainly an eye-opener for any postgraduate who assumes that the viva examination will be automatically fair and above board.

After an MSc, I completed four years of doctoral research at a major UK university. The results were formally approved by the relevant research council and were published as a series of seven papers in major, peer-reviewed journals.

Before the viva, I’d queried the choice of examiners, owing to perceived bias, but was overruled.

The degree was not awarded: the examiners claimed that none of my seven papers had deserved publication – even though they had satisfied a total of 14 independent referees. The examiners had decided all 14 were wrong.

So what did I do? I got on with my life. Years later, though, I discovered that my papers are cited in the examiners’ own publications: that is, the examiners had used them as valid references to support their own work. Incredibly, some of these papers had been referenced before my viva. Clearly, this was perverse, dishonest and highly unprofessional conduct: the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

I sent it five of the examiners’ publications that cite my papers, together with a copy of the examiners’ signed report. I asked for acknowledgement that the viva had been biased. But the university declined to comment; it said the complaint was “out of time”.

Where there is evidence of malpractice, it should not matter when the viva was held: bias was deliberate and obvious, and the university could have followed up. Hiding behind process is a deeply inadequate response to such a blatant and egregious case. Nowadays, so-called historic cases of injustice and abuse, some from many decades ago, are being recognised and investigated. So why is corruption in education treated differently?

Examinations might be more equitable if, before the viva, candidates were officially entitled to raise concerns about their examiners – any concerns being addressed independently of the college or university. Such adjudication might seldom be needed, but it should still be in place. Examiners, after all, are people. And people – from students to presidents – do not always possess the levels of integrity and honesty that we naively expect of them.

Candidates should not be expected to accept a particular examiner if they can offer valid reasons for not doing so. And any university that seeks to impose a disputed examiner should be asked to reconsider its definition of fair play. 

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Reader's comments (11)

You might also like.

The last thing UK students need is a higher maintenance loan

Students already graduate with huge debts. Rather than accepting yet more easy credit, they should do more paid work, says Paul Wiltshire

Why has policing of US campus protests gone so wrong?

Ideal of student-oriented officers, arising from 1960s-era protests, appears to have lost ground to profession’s more enduring imperatives

Featured jobs

Fuse open science blog

• Who we are & how to take part

Thursday 23 May 2013

The phd viva: a thing of nightmares some reflections from a recently viva-ed phd student, no comments:, post a comment.

Senior Lecturer and Researcher 

Rahmat Budiman, PhD

The PhD Viva: A nightmare or a sweet dream?

The PhD Viva as the final step of the PhD journey is often described as something scary, like a nightmare. Some people feel nervous, stressed, fatigue and loss of appetite. However, the Viva can be a sweet dream; something exciting. The following tips may help you to prepare a good Viva. It must be remembered that the preparation cannot be made in one or two days. The preparation is started when you start your PhD programme.

Studying for a PhD degree requires full-time thinking, time and attention, although you are a part-time PhD student. It is advisable to create a good atmosphere to study and do the research. Every people have different learning styles and strategies. Find the ones that you like to adopt.

Plan your PhD journey carefully. As a process, pursuing a PhD degree needs a well-prepared plan. Evaluate the plan regularly and take an action if you find something is not working well.

Broad your knowledge and experience. Pursuing a PhD degree is not merely doing the research. The learning process is very important to understand. It enriches your understanding of many things, particularly of those related to your research area. Get acquainted with other PhD students and people who have similar interests with you. Join relevant trainings provided and build networks with other trainees or the trainers.

Build a good relationship with the supervisors. Your supervisors are like a match referee. They will “watch” you play the games and if there is faulty, they will blow the whistle. In other words, you lead your research and you are expected to know the field of your research. If you do not know, they will trigger you to find out what you should know. Remember, they will not tell you what to do, but they will help you develop your curiosity and knowledge of the topics you choose, for example by asking you hard questions. It is normal, they want to polish your critical thinking. If you face a problem, do not hesitate to consult it with the supervisors. Be honest to your supervisors. When the thesis has completed, it is good to ask the supervisors whether the thesis is ready for submission. If they think it is not, ask them which part(s) of the thesis that needs improvement.

When the thesis is submitted, relax and take time to stay away from the thesis for a couple days. Usually, the Viva is conducted three months after the submission. You can make notes or a summary of each chapter. Write important issues and do not forget to include the page number, for example, when you copy a table or figure. If you find some typos, for example, put a mark on the page where the typos found and inform the examiners during the Viva. Admit the mistakes. You may re-read the thesis or read the summary (make sure you know your thesis very well).

Sleep well and do not forget to have a meal before the Viva. Dress well. It is good to look smart. Wearing appropriate dress means that you respect yourself and also the examiners and convenor. It is important to remember that you must be comfortable with the dress you are wearing. One last thing, brush your teeth.

During the Viva:

The convenor will call you to proceed to the venue and she/he will introduce you to the examiners. Have a seat in the most comfortable manner, but keep straight.

If English is not your native language, do not worry. Viva is not an IELTS or TOEFL test. Listen to the questions being asked carefully. If you are not sure, ask the examiner to repeat the question or rephrase it. Do not ever try to answer the questions that you are not sure if you understand. Defend your argument, but do not be defensive. Be honest, if you do not know a particular thing, acknowledge it. If you think that the examiners do not understand what you have said, you can ask them whether you have answered the question(s).

It is strongly recommended to take notes and write down the points you want to say. Therefore, bring some paper and at least two pens.

When giving an argument, go back to what you have written in your thesis.

The convenor will read the points of the Viva. Although you will receive the printed results, pay attention to what is said. The convenor finally will declare the decision.

The convenor will ask you if you have any questions or anything you want to say to the examiners. If you have or do not have, say in a polite manner.

Thank the examiners and the convenor. If it is possible, you can have a small conversation with the examiners before you leave the venue

(This article is based on my point of view. You may find others’ are different.)

Featured Posts

Ikhwal Penerjemahan*

Recent Posts

Tutorial Tatap Muka (TTM): Beberapa Pikiran

Search By Tags

Doctoral College

Preparing For Your Viva – Our Top Tips

We’ve had a few PGRs tweeting us recently asking for viva advice and top tips. Although we have some great advice and resources of our Preparing For Your Viva ELE page , I thought it would be useful to write a short post about the advice we share in our viva workshops and WEBINARs. So here are our top ten tips:

• Before you start preparing, take a break . You have been working flat out on your research you at least 3 years, and have no doubt spent several intense months engrossed in the writing and editing of your thesis. Take some time away from it. Go on holiday like Dr. Emily Johnson did . Get perspective on your thesis to better enable you to defend it in the viva.
• When you’re reading your thesis, you’re bound to notice spelling, grammar and typing errors. It’s normal. Make a list of corrections, print them out and go in to the viva prepared to share them with your examiners.
• Re-reading the thesis is useful preparation, but it’s not enough .
• Do a mock-viva – with your supervisors, your peers, your friends, your family… practice talking about your research again after months of focusing on your writing.
• Practice summarising your research – vivas often beginning with a question asking you to summarise your thesis or key findings, to help settle you in.
• Prepare answers to your nightmare questions – whatever you fear being asked about the most, prepare and practice your answers. Chances are your nightmare questions won’t come up, but you’ll feel better knowing how to answer if they do.
• Read new material that has been published – your examiners may ask you how a new piece of research impacts on your thesis!
• Remember what is being examined – there is nothing mystical about research degree examination – your examiners assess your research according to a fixed set of criteria.
• Remember – you are the expert! Your examiners are experts in their field, and they may be an expert in yours – but they are not the leading expert on your research or thesis. You are.
• As much as you can, try and relax . Nerves are normal. You’ve done the hardest bit already – doing the research, writing the thesis. What an achievement! The viva is your chance to demonstrate and affirm everything you have learnt throughout your research degree.

Still have more questions? Why not download Preparing For Your Viva – Frequently Asked Questions , which compiles all the questions and answers from our Preparing For Your Viva Q&A Panels.

Written by: Kelly Louise Preece- Researcher Development Manager for PGRs

• PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
• Doing a PhD
• A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
• The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
• There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
• There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
• Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

• you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
• you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
• you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
• you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
• your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

• Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
• Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
• Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
• Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
• Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
• Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an  analysis of 26,076 PhD students  who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

• a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
• notes that were created during their preparation,
• a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

And then he threatened to kill himself: nightmare viva stories as opportunities for learning

Qualitative Research Journal

ISSN : 1443-9883

Article publication date: 13 November 2017

In the UK and countries following similar systems of doctoral assessment, there is little research-based evidence about what goes on in vivas. However, “doctoral assessment ‘horror stories’”, abound. The purpose of this paper is to report a study focussing on difficult doctoral examining experiences and argue that sharing such stories can provide a useful basis for examiner and supervisor education.

Design/methodology/approach

The study took a narrative auto/biographical approach.

The stories participants told show that doctoral examining is relational, emotional and ethical work and that viva outcomes are strongly influenced by subjectivities. There was felt to be a need to share stories of difficulties in order to bring them into the open with a view to prompting transformational change.

Research limitations/implications

Participants were self-selecting and all worked at the same institution.

Originality/value

There are few accounts of examiners’ experiences of the viva.

• Auto/biographical research
• Doctoral assessment
• Emotional relational work
• Ethical practice

Sikes, P. (2017), "And then he threatened to kill himself: nightmare viva stories as opportunities for learning", Qualitative Research Journal , Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 230-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2016-0074

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Pat Sikes

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

It does not take much to get us started. Bring a group of academics together, raise the topic of vivas, then sit back and wait for the “doctoral assessment ‘horror stories’” ( Morley et al. , 2013 , p. 5) to emerge. Most of us have tales to share, stories about our own or our students’ vivas, disturbing experiences as examiners and supervisors, or accounts of what happened to friends and colleagues. In the way of such things, each recounting accrues its own Chinese whispers embellishments, becoming ever more lurid. These are academic versions of urban myths, the anecdotes that “research examining seems to attract […] like a magnet” ( Grabbe, 2003 , p. 128), and as the worldwide expansion and diversification of doctoral studies ( Crossouard, 2011 ; Group of 8, 2013 ; Morley et al. , 2002, 2013 ; Tinkler and Jackson, 2004 ; Wisker and Kiley, 2014 ) leads to a concomitant increase in vivas, defences and other forms of examination [1] the genre grows daily.

Yet although the stories abound, in the UK and countries following similar systems of doctoral assessment, there is little research-based evidence about what happens in vivas. This is largely because the behind closed doors approach, involving the candidate, two or three examiners, maybe a chairperson, with the supervisor silently sitting in, has not been conducive to systematic data collection ( Morley et al. , 2013 ; Murray, 2009 , p. 13). The viva involves what Carter describes as “a Hogwartsian sense that it is an arcane ritual, a mystery and properly so” (2008, p. 365). Vivas can be seen, and operate, as rites of passage (cf. van Gennep, 1909/1961 ); and researching, let alone understanding, such life events is seldom easy. Matters are not helped either, at least within the UK, by the absence of transparency that seems to characterize doctoral assessment; by differences in examining procedures varying from institution to institution and discipline to discipline; and, by an apparent lack of education and advice for examiners ( Bassnett, 2014 ; Morley et al. , 2002, 2013 ; Murray, 2009 ; Park, 2003 ; Tinkler and Jackson, 2004 ).

Given what can be at stake for candidates (including career, income, identity), it is unsurprising that research on doctoral assessment has tended to focus on student experiences and outcomes with any consideration of how things are for examiners being very much secondary. However, as Pearce (2005) notes, “being asked to examine a doctoral thesis is not only one of the greatest honours you can be afforded as an academic, it is also one of the greatest responsibilities” (p. 1) with examiners feeling “under pressure since so much rests on how they manage the whole examination process” ( Murray, 2009 , pp. 2-3). Such responsibility would seem to warrant attention.

Research focussing on examiners’ perceptions and experiences has tended to be concerned with such issues as: assessment of what constitutes “doctorateness” (e.g. Trafford and Leshem, 2009 ; Poole, 2014 ; Wellington, 2013 ); views on the purpose of the viva ( Carter, 2008 ; Carter and Whittaker, 2009 ; Jackson and Tinkler, 2001 ); the sorts of questions asked in vivas ( Trafford and Leshem, 2002 ; Trafford, 2003 ); how examiners approach and read theses ( Carter, 2008 ; Golding et al. , 2014 ; Johnson, 1997 ; Mullins and Kiley, 2002 ); choice of examiners ( Kiley, 2009 ); notions of what constitutes originality ( Clarke and Lunt, 2014 ); and comparisons of consistency of grading ( Bloxham and Price, 2015 ; Bourke and Holbrook, 2013 ). This is useful information but it can fail to communicate much sense of what it is actually like to be an examiner taking part in “a social practice […] fraught with risks and uncertainties” ( Morley, 2004 , p. 91).

As someone who at the time of writing has sat mutely in the vivas of most of the 45 doctoral students I have supervised to completion, been external examiner for 91 doctorates, internal for around 40 more, and had my own viva, I know what it has been like for me. Obviously each time is different but I do not think I have ever been in a viva when anyone in the room has treated the situation lightly. I have been fortunate that in the majority of cases when I have been involved, as examiner or supervisor, events have proceeded relatively smoothly from appointment of examiners to the final outcome. There have, however, been a number of occasions, when issues and difficulties of various kinds – “horrors” even – have arisen and it was after one particularly disturbing viva that I felt the need to exploit the researcher’s privilege to investigate other’s experiences. I wanted to do this partly in order to put what happened into context ( Golding et al. , 2014 ) but more especially, to take the opportunity to follow Mills’ (1970) exhortation to use the sociological imagination in such a way that “the personal uneasiness of individuals is focussed upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues” (pp. 11-12). I thought there could be something to learn from consideration and sharing of difficult stories that could make a contribution to the awareness of examiners and might help inform examining development and practice. This would seem to be a worthwhile enterprise since with notable exceptions such as Wakeford’s (UK based) PhD Diaries [2] , there appears to be little available to guide new examiners ( Gibney, 2013 ), other than the raw, unanalysed horror stories, instructive as these can undoubtedly be.

Examiners do, of course, draw on their own vivas for guidance and, in the same way that personal experience of being taught is a major influence on how teachers teach ( Day et al. , 2007 ; Golding et al. , 2014 ), it seems that one’s own experience of being examined is likely to influence one’s assessment practices ( Colley and Silver, 2005 ; Crossouard, 2011 , p. 324; Wisker and Kiley, 2014 , p. 127). Anecdotal evidence suggests that examiners often reproduce, adapt or avoid what happened to them as doctoral candidates. Only as they gain experience of examining, through a “sitting next to Nellie” [3] process can they begin to adopt a critical perspective, see other possibilities and develop other ways of doing it. A study might help some shortcut this process and consequently I decided to undertake an exploratory investigation of doctoral examiners’ experiences of examining.

An exploratory investigation of experiences of doctoral examining

Having obtained ethical clearance I sent out an e-mail to all academics working in a Russell Group [4] university inviting them to share their experiences of “difficulties or problems of whatever kind (e.g. practical, ethical, procedural) arising at any stage of the examination process, from the initial approach to be an examiner, through reading the thesis and taking part in the viva, to signing off and beyond”.

In total, 21 people at all career stages, from across the range of disciplines, responded, and between them, told 61 stories. In total, 20 people took part in audio-recorded interviews and one person contributed a written account.

As noted, I was motivated to undertake this investigation following an extremely nasty examining experience. My view, shared with Stanley (1992, 1993) , is that any study that involves making sense of and writing lives inevitably auto/biographically implicates the researcher. In this case, I treated my own examining experiences as “data”, thereby incorporating an unambiguously autoethnographic approach (see Ellis and Bochner, 2000 ; Golding et al. , 2014 ).

Seeking and studying stories

Obviously those who replied to the e-mail were self-selecting individuals who felt sufficiently motivated to take the time necessary to be involved. The reasons they wanted to be heard, as well as the ways in which they told their stories, the storylines, tropes, discourses, constructions, etc. they used, could all form the focus of different types of narrative research (see, e.g. Bochner and Riggs, 2014 ; Clandinin, 2013 ; Frank, 1995, 2010 ; Goodson, 2013 ; Reissmann, 2008 ). My aim here, however, is to re-present and consider what Goodson, borrowing from Stenhouse (1975) , describes as “stories of action within theories of context” ( Goodson, 1992 , p. 6). My interest is in the events and interpretations depicted in the stories, and in the connections, coherence, sense and meanings (cf. Polkinghorne, 1988 , p. 6) that academics make, impute or leave unsaid when constructing narratives to describe examining situations experienced as problematic. In seeking stories I have aspired to practice the sort of ethical, respectful and careful listening that Davies (2014) describes as expressing “openness to emergent difference in the other and in oneself, and openness to the not-yet-known […] [and] for that which cannot yet be said” (p. xii). Thus, I see the stories, their telling in a research context and my co-productive involvement in that process as potentially offering insights into and contributing to, the complex and ever evolving relationships and differences between social, structural and cultural locations and the identities and agency that tellers and hearers accord themselves.

I began by talking about “doctoral assessment horror stories”, suggesting they were not dissimilar to urban myths, prone to exaggeration and distortion, yet here I was, seeking stories of difficulties and problems that I was going to treat as “data”. Is there a difference in stories told amongst friends and those invited by a “researcher”? Possibly, much depends on how the various parties come to, and make sense of, research encounters and relationships.

When I saw your email I really wanted to speak to you cus we’re so often cast as the villains in the piece, the demon examiners. There are demon examiners but there are demon candidates and demon supervisors and dreadful situations as well and that needs documenting (Sara [5] ).

How do you learn to do it? On the job by and large but I do think we should be looking to educate examiners better and collecting and examining stories as you’re doing might provide materials that could be used in staff development work (Simon).

Each story is, of course, singular and personal, although it would seem that we all use the shared, culturally located storylines and scripts available to us (cf. Booker, 2006 ; Downs, 2013 ; Frank, 1995 ). Consequently any sort of categorisation inevitably does violence to the unique nature of the perceptions and experiences a narrator re-presents (cf. Bergin and Westwood, 2003 ; Bochner, 2014 ; Henry, 1965 ; Lather, 1991 ; Redwood, 2008 ). However, to provide a framework for comprehension and re-presentation, I am going to make use of some very broad headings that I considered were grounded in those stories. Thus, this is unequivocally my narrative account/analysis which undoubtedly reflects my own (auto/biographical) preoccupations and experiences.

examiners behaving badly;

supervisory issues;

thesis issues;

problems at home – issues around internal examining; and

student issues.

I will now address each in turn, using illustrative quotations.

Examiners behaving badly

Stories of examiners behaving badly included accounts of animosity and disagreements, sometimes stretching back years, between the various parties involved in, or even tangentially connected with, a viva. In these cases, grievances were taken out on candidates and it was only later that others learned what had possibly been going on.

I’ve encountered examiners who are incredibly pompous and who ramble on and on about their work and opinions without really asking the student any questions or giving the other examiner a chance to speak either (John).

So she’s going ‘why haven’t you cited my 2001 papers and my 2009 book? I don’t see how you thought you could avoid mentioning what I say there’. Sometimes work is so important that it has to appear but that wasn’t the case here […] but she insisted that there be amendments that included copious references to her stuff (Karla).

I had this experience where a student had, legitimately, critiqued the work of the external and I could see him getting redder and redder until he was practically incandescent with rage (Mick).

Some examiners seem to want the student to have written quite a different thesis and appear not to be prepared to acknowledge the one in front of them. When this happens the viva can become extremely frustrating with lines of questioning unconnected to the work that has been done.

He was really nasty. I think he was showing off, and when she cried he seemed to realise he’d gone too far and he didn’t know what to do so he sort of carried on but in a muted sort of fashion. He did send a letter of apology later that day – as if that was gonna make things better (Kate).

He wiped the floor with him. I kept trying to intervene but he was like a Rottweiler, wouldn’t let up and was getting louder and more agitated. There wasn’t space for the student to get a word in edgeways even if he’d not been rendered speechless by this onslaught (Brian).

John, Mark and Kate speculated whether aggressive examiners they had encountered were influenced by gendered approaches to doctoral assessment in particular and academic culture in general, linking bad behaviour to macho, confrontational styles of questioning (cf. Crossouard, 2011 ; Leonard, 2001 ). It certainly was the case that the badly behaved examiners I was told about were men, with the exception of the woman Karla referred to who could be seen to be self-promoting in a way that is usually associated with masculinity. Here, however, is not the place for further discussion of these issues.

Supervisory issues

It’s not unusual to get theses where you wonder what the supervisor has been up to. Why haven’t they intervened or why did they let the student submit. To be fair, you sometimes find out that the student has gone against advice but it can make for a very uncomfortable experience (Conrad).

Supervisory issues were often at the root of difficult examining experiences. There were stories of what seemed to be dereliction of duty where supervisors did not appear to have appropriately advised students or had not read their work, thereby allowing submission of seriously flawed pieces. Then there were cases where students had taken approaches which examiners critiqued before learning that the supervisor was responsible. Finding this out in a viva can, as Conrad noted, make for a very uncomfortable experience, especially when the examiner is a friend of the supervisor and they have been asked to examine as a favour.

This thesis was appallingly presented. There were grammatical and punctuation errors on every page and I may be a bit anal but I always have to correct everything so I was at it for ever. The student was Libyan but that cuts no mustard with me: you do a doctorate in a foreign language, you should have no concessions to your ability to express yourself in that language otherwise it raises issues with equality and fairness in relation to home students. I also think it’s disrespectful of my time to expect me to read such crap. The supervisor however, breezily said she didn’t think it was her job – the student should have employed a proof reader (Karen).

This was an absolutely dreadful experience which I don’t much like talking about because I’m not sure I did the right thing. And I can’t understand the supervisor’s role in it at all. This was an autoethnography which contained libellous comments about identifiable people and reported an extremely serious crime which apparently the police didn’t know about. There’d been no ethical review because the institution didn’t require it for auto/biographical work. The internal examiner and I were utterly appalled: I felt sorry for him because he had to deal with the departmental flak that followed, and we discussed going to the police and not going ahead with the viva but we did and it was a nightmare because there, from what the student said, it became crystal clear that this was a revenge text. I actually thought the student was psychopathic because they didn’t acknowledge anything was unacceptable, said they no longer had any relationship with the people written about and dismissed the crime as having happened a long time ago. I have to say it was extremely well written and a compelling read. We debated for ages and eventually decided we couldn’t pass it on ethical grounds and referred it to the head of department. The supervisor was out of the country when the viva happened – but they hadn’t raised any concerns with the student and had let them go ahead and submit: that much we ascertained (Sylvia).

[…] who took a long time to ask questions. The supervisor kept butting in and saying “what she means to say is […]” we threw him out after 5 mins (Myles).

The supervisor was pissed. He came into the room reeking of Listerine and I and the external who knew him of old, looked at each other. We both had a notion there might be trouble and it was only about 10 minutes into the viva that he intervened with a pompous comment about a question I’d asked. The external, who was a very senior academic, told him if he spoke again he’d have to go. He lasted about 5 minutes before he did it again so the external apologised to the student and told the supervisor to leave. After the viva we found out he’d left the building. Probably gone to the pub (Petra).

Theses issues

I had the experience of examining a thesis which substantially plagiarised me! And that was a home student, in the days before Google. I did go to the viva, although maybe I shouldn’t have, and when I challenged them they denied it – so I pulled my book out my bag and they still denied it and tried to argue it was a case of synchronicity (Paul).

I’d been asked to examine this thesis as a favour to a friend who’d taken on the student when the original supervisor had suddenly died. He told me it was complicated but didn’t want to go into detail for fear of influencing me – or putting me off as I now realise. The thesis came in two volumes with around 250,000 words. I checked and the regs said “doctoral theses will normally be of 80,000 words”. I contacted the internal and he said a special case had been made because the first examiners had said it could go over. First examiners? Didn’t I know this was a resubmission and that the student had demanded new examiners? No I didn’t – so could I see the original report? No I couldn’t because someone in the office had erroneously granted the student’s request that the new examiners didn’t see the first feedback because they felt it was prejudicial but now all this was on paper and apparently couldn’t be rescinded. The thesis made claims to use unique approaches to re-presentation. I’ve no problem with this sort of thing if it works but when my 22 year old son picked it up and said “what the f*** is this?” I couldn’t answer. It was a total mess: incoherent, unethical, bloody nonsense actually. I phoned the internal and said I didn’t want to go to viva because it was going to be embarrassing and he enquired as to whether we could fail it outright and the answer came back, no. There’d been so much trouble already and procedures hadn’t been properly followed so the very prestigious university was afraid of litigation and there had to be a viva. I felt like a sacrificial victim and debated not turning up but decided that was cowardly. The viva was every bit as dreadful as I’d imagined: the student – a mature candidate – was utterly bonkers. The only redeeming thing was the brilliant chair from another school who’d got a real grasp of the regs. Apparently we couldn’t fail it outright here either. Our discussion went on for ages and we were getting into hysterical laughter. Eventually we went for major amendments. It’s not come back yet (Annie).

Problems at home – issues around internal examining

It was major amendments. No question. But the supervisor was fuming. Immediately the external left she came to my room and gave me a bollocking, questioning my academic judgement and accusing me of letting the university down. This was 3 years ago and I’m still not forgiven. She treats me like shit now and as soon as I can I will leave. What I didn’t know at the time was that there were further complications in that the student was in a relationship with a friend of the supervisor and that she’d told her that all would be well (Sara).

This was the examination of the thesis of a female staff member so there were 2 externals and me. All men. We all agreed that the work was extremely poor in content and presentation. One external wanted an outright fail but because I was internal and because this was a colleague, I argued for major amendments and another viva. The supervisor wasn’t happy and nor was the candidate and unpleasant and libellous claims were made about the conduct of the viva. When we were giving the feedback the supervisor intervened in an inappropriate fashion and had to be told to shut up basically. The candidate said the questioning was aggressive and she also asked for an examining team which was not all male or misogynistic which is what she claimed we were. I don’t consider that was an appropriate claim but it was her perception and so for the next viva I had to get a female chair and I had to replace an examiner which was quite embarrassing. Came the resubmission and the work wasn’t much better and there were still egregious presentational problems. The decision was taken, nonetheless, to award an MPhil rather than the doctorate. Again the supervisor intervened and there was another major complaint – this time too there were complaints that the required changes were not sufficiently detailed. Eventually they agreed to allow another resubmission and the case is still in abeyance. Because this was an internal candidate and because the supervisor took the line they did, relationships within the school are seriously damaged. I actually feel particularly distressed because in my eyes I’ve been vilified and some appalling things have been said about me. The whole business has been entirely upsetting and stressful (Tom).

Student issues

I was asked to examine this thesis because the student had made a lot of use of my work. I read it and was astounded. There were no more than 30 references and the most recent one was 8 years old. Not only that, I was credited with having researched something I’ve never, ever looked at. I met the internal for lunch and she was unhappy too and she knew the student was difficult. The supervisor had left under a cloud a couple of years previously but had continued to supervise. Anyway the internal suggested we got a chair, it wasn’t normal practice there, and luckily there was a professor prepared to step in at short notice. Thank God we did because it was a viva from hell. The student, a relatively young woman, was the most aggressive candidate I’ve ever encountered. From the get go she was challenging and she made it clear she thought we were ivory tower idiots who knew f all about the real world of schools. When I asked her why she said I’d researched something I’ve never looked at she got even more aggressive and started quoting made up references to the extent that I began to wonder if I had. It was bizarre and it was nasty. We gave her major revisions. A couple of weeks later I got a demand to send up all my correspondence about the thesis with the internal. Freedom of information. There hadn’t been anything compromising but that’s what they were looking for, something like us saying something disrespectful or something. The internal said she thought the supervisor was behind it. Anyway, we were both sacked as examiners. Ignominious or what? (Ian).

It was awful. The supervisor knew the thesis was dreadful but the student had insisted on submitting. I don’t think he’d properly prepared her for major amendments or even possibly fail. And we recommended the former to be kind really. When she was told it was major she didn’t understand and she looked at her supervisor and asked if she’d passed. I said she had the opportunity to resubmit. It took a while for that to sink in and then she started crying, calling on God and saying she was going to die (Vena).

He was very upset there was a lot of shouting and then he threatened to kill himself (Valerie).

It was the first time I’d examined about 25 plus years ago. It was the Friday before the viva on the Monday. I was working late and the only person in the building. There was a knock at the door and there was this big bloke who told me I was to be his examiner on Monday. He came straight into the room and sat down and told me he had to pass because he was very senior in his country’s ministry of education, he’d been away from his family for 3 years and he needed to go home. He told me that it would be to my advantage to make things easy for him and that money and all expenses paid trips as a guest of his government could be mine. He asked me what I thought of his thesis and I said I wouldn’t talk about it outside the viva and would he leave now please. He went but as he left he told me to remember what he’d said. I was frightened. When I told my hod, who was also his supervisor, what had happened he didn’t treat it at all seriously and I just let it go. I wouldn’t now and if a young female colleague told me that that had happened to her I’d make a serious complaint (Yvonne).

Discussing her study of students’ perceptions of doctoral vivas, Barbara Crossouard commented that the accounts she collected provided powerful testimony to the affective dimensions of (doctoral) learning and assessment. Far from being an objective, neutral technology, the viva process emerges as saturated with affect and often passionate emotions, a scene of emergence of subjects with “passionate attachments” ( Butler 1997 , p. 7, pp. 325-326).

The stories I was told lead to a similar conclusion. Doctoral examining is relational, emotional and ethical work and as such, despite academic cultural and institutional expectations and criteria as to what constitutes “doctorateness” ( Trafford and Leshem, 2009 ; Poole, 2014 ; Wellington, 2013 ), outcomes are influenced by subjectivities. This would seem to be the case regardless of academic discipline, raising questions (I shall not address here, see, rather Dobson, 2008 ; Jackson and Tinkler, 2001 ) about the viva’s fitness for purpose.

Research (e.g. Bloxham and Price, 2015 ; Wisker and Kiley, 2014 ) suggests that doctoral examiners set out wanting students to succeed. Although some of the stories I was told concerned negatively confrontational individuals, many of the experiences reported as being difficult and unpleasant concerned instances where success was, for whatever reason, made difficult. There were shock horror stories, certainly, but more of the problematic situations focussed on: having to disappoint candidates; apparently poor supervision; unreasonable fellow examiners; institutional relationships impacted by assessment decisions; students with unrealistic expectations or mistaken understandings of what doctoral study involved; and inappropriate uses of power.

Reflecting on their experiences a number of people talked about how they felt the nature of a PhD (leaving aside professional doctorates) had changed. Nigel put it like this: “Up until end of the 1970s there was an expectation that a thesis should be a scholarly, original, life work. From the 80s onwards it’s tended to be seen more as a craft piece”. This change is, at least partly, likely to do with the expansion in numbers undertaking doctorates. Other potentially associated factors are the perceived pressures: coming from university administrators and students themselves, to ensure that students, paying high fees, succeed; and the push from HEFCE [6] to meet submission deadlines which can lead to theses being submitted before they are “ready”. Such changes and pressures have implications for the assessment process and for examiners’ experiences of it.

[…] it suits our current neoliberal governments, in particular, to think of everyone having measureable and manipulative characteristics, and to this end, to think of any community and its members as entities, or objects, that can be pinned down, categorised and made predictable (p. xii).

Such characteristics, categorisation and predictability do not reflect the real world. Earlier I referred to Mills’ (1970) injunction to use the sociological imagination as a first step to ethical transformational change. Coming clean about the messiness and subjectivity of examining, sharing stories of personal uneasiness, making them public and discussing what might have been done to avoid difficult situations in an open and trusting CPD [7] context could help inform and develop ethical practices and can provide support and reassurance. In addition, the stories can be used to provide pointers for formulating institutional and departmental policies and codes of conduct concerning, for instance: expectations of supervisors; appointment of internal and external examiners; conduct of, and in, vivas; and alerting students as to what to expect. Such measures in themselves, like this paper, are a start and could make a contribution to the development of greater transparency and, thereby, more ethical doctoral examining.

Doctoral assessment takes different forms in different countries. This paper focuses on British vivas which essentially involve an internal examiner from the institution where the candidate has studied and an external from elsewhere meeting in private with the candidate.

John Wakeford’s PhD diaries (see www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/training-development/phd-supervisor-development/phd_diaries and www.missendencentre.co.uk/phdiaries.html offer “real” scenarios of challenges faced by doctoral supervisors and students which could also be useful to examiners.

“Sitting next to Nellie” refers to a type of apprenticeship model whereby the neophyte observes first and practices later (see Hargreaves, 1994 ).

Russell Group universities are prestigious UK research-oriented institutions.

Names are pseudonymous. External examiners usually receive around £150. Internal examiners are seldom paid.

Higher Education Funding Council.

Continuing Professional Development.

Bassnett , S. ( 2014 ), “ Cavalier attitudes lead to uncivil practices in vivas ”, Times Higher Education , available at: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/cavalier-attitudes-lead-to-uncivil-practices-in-viva/2013263.article (accessed 19 February 2015 ).

Bergin , J. and Westwood , R. ( 2003 ), “ The necessities of violence ”, Culture and Organisation , Vol. 9 No. 4 , pp. 211 - 223 .

Bloxham , S. and Price , M. ( 2015 ), “ External examining: fit for purpose? ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 40 No. 2 , pp. 195 - 211 .

Bochner , A. ( 2014 ), Coming to Narrative: A Personal History of Paradigm Change in the Human Sciences , Left Coast Press , Walnut Creek, CA .

Bochner , A. and Riggs , N. ( 2014 ), “ Practising narrative inquiry ”, in Leavy , P. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Methods , Oxford University Press , New York, NY , pp. 195 - 222 .

Booker , C. ( 2006 ), The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories , Continuum , London .

Bourke , S. and Holbrook , A. ( 2013 ), “ Examining PhD and research masters theses: looking at the consistency of grading across twelve indices of importance ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 38 No. 4 , pp. 407 - 416 .

Butler , J. ( 1997 ), Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative , Routledge , London and New York, NY .

Carter , B. and Whittaker , K. ( 2009 ), “ Examining the British PhD viva: opening new doors or scarring for life? ”, Contemporary Nurse , Vol. 32 Nos 1/2 , pp. 169 - 178 .

Carter , S. ( 2008 ), “ Examining the doctoral thesis: a discussion ”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , Vol. 45 No. 4 , pp. 365 - 374 .

Clandinin , J. ( 2013 ), Engaging in Narrative Inquiry , Left Coast Press , Walnut Creek, CA .

Clarke , G.I. and Lunt ( 2014 ), “ The concept of ‘originality’: how is it interpreted by examiners? ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 39 No. 7 , pp. 803 - 820 .

Colley , H. and Silver , H. ( 2005 ), “ External examining and the benchmarking of standards ”, Higher Education Academy , York .

Crossouard , B. ( 2011 ), “ The doctoral viva voce as a cultural practice: the gendered production of academic subjects ”, Gender and Education , Vol. 23 No. 3 , pp. 313 - 329 .

Davies , B. ( 2014 ), Listening to Children: Being and Becoming , Routledge , London .

Day , C. , Sammons , P. , Stobart , G. , Kington , A. and Gu , Q. ( 2007 ), Teachers Matter: Connecting Lives, Work and Effectiveness , Open University Press/McGraw Hill , Maidenhead .

Dobson , S. ( 2008 ), “ Theorising the academic viva in higher education: the argument for a qualitative approach ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 33 No. 3 , pp. 277 - 288 .

Downs , Y. ( 2013 ), Reading and Teaching Ivor Goodson , Peter Lang , New York, NY .

Ellis , C. and Bochner , A. ( 2000 ), “ Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject ”, in Denzin , N. and Lincoln , Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Ethnography , 2nd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 733 - 768 .

Frank , A. ( 1995 ), The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness and Ethics , Chicago University Press , Chicago, IL .

Frank , A. ( 2010 ), Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology , Chicago University Press , Chicago, IL .

Gibney , E. ( 2013 ), “ Are PhD vivas still fit for purpose? ”, available at: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/are-phd-vivas-still-fit-for-purpose/2003341.article (accessed 19 February 2015 ).

Golding , C. , Sharmini , S. and Lazarovitch , A. ( 2014 ), “ What examiners do: what thesis students should know ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 39 No. 5 , pp. 563 - 576 .

Goodson , I. ( 1992 ), “ Studying teachers’ lives: an emergent field of inquiry ”, in Goodson , I. (Ed.), Studying Teachers’ Lives , Routledge , London , pp. 1 - 17 .

Goodson , I. ( 2013 ), Developing Narrative Theory , Routledge , London .

Grabbe , L. ( 2003 ), “ The trials of being a PHD external examiner ”, Quality Assurance in Education , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 133 .

Group of 8 ( 2013 ), “ The changing PhD: Discussion Paper Turner ACT, Group of 8 ”, available at: www.go8.edu.au/__documents/go8-policy-analysis/2013/the-changing-phd_final.pdf (accessed 19 February 2015 ).

Hargreaves , D. ( 1994 ), “ The new professionalism: the synthesis of professional and institutional development ”, Teaching and Teacher Education , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 423 - 438 .

Henry , J. ( 1965 ), Pathways to Madness , Vintage Books , New York, NY .

Jackson , C. and Tinkler , P. ( 2001 ), “ Back to basics: a consideration of the purposes of the PhD examination ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 355 - 366 .

Johnson , S. ( 1997 ), “ Examining the examiners: an analysis of examiners’ reports of doctoral theses ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 333 - 347 .

Kiley , M. ( 2009 ), “ ‘You Don’t Want a Smart Alec’: selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 34 No. 8 , pp. 889 - 903 .

Lather , P. ( 1991 ), Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/In the Postmodern , Routledge , London .

Leonard , D. ( 2001 ), A Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies , Open University Press , Buckingham .

Medford , K. ( 2006 ), “ Caught with a fake ID: ethical questions about slippage in autoethnography ”, Qualitative Inquiry , Vol. 21 No. 5 , pp. 853 - 864 .

Mills , C.W. ( 1970 ), The Sociological Imagination , Penguin , Harmondsworth (First published in 1959 by Oxford University Press) .

Morley , L. ( 2004 ), “ Interrogating doctoral assessment ”, International Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 41 No. 2 , pp. 91 - 97 .

Morley , L. , Leonard , D. and David , M. ( 2002 ), “ Variations in vivas: quality and equality in British PhD assessment ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 263 - 275 .

Morley , L. , Leonard , D. and David , M. ( 2013 ), “ Quality and equality in British PhD examination ”, in Webb , J. , Brien , D. and Burr , S. (Eds), TEXT Special Issue 22 October 2013 – Examining of Doctoral Degrees in Creative Arts: Process, Practice and Standards , available at: www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue22/Morley&Leonard&David.pdf (accessed 15 December 2013 ).

Mullins , G. and Kiley , M. ( 2002 ), “ ‘It’s a PhD, Not a Nobel Prize’: how experienced examiners assess research theses ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 27 No. 4 , pp. 369 - 386 .

Murray , R. ( 2009 ), How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis , 2nd ed. , Open University Press/McGraw Hill , Maidenhead .

Park , C. ( 2003 ), “ Levelling the playing field: towards best practice in the doctoral viva ”, Higher Education Review , Vol. 36 No. 1 , pp. 47 - 67 .

Pearce , L. ( 2005 ), How to Examine a Thesis , Open University Press/McGraw Hill , Maidenhead .

Polkinghorne , D. ( 1988 ), Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences , State University of New York , Albany, NY .

Poole , B. ( 2014 ), “ The rather elusive concept of ‘doctorateness’: a reaction to wellington ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 40 No. 9 , pp. 1507 - 1522 .

Redwood , S. ( 2008 ), “ Research less violent? On the ethics of performative social science ”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research , Vol. 9 No. 2 , available at: www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/407/882 (accessed 25 February 2015 ).

Reissmann , C. ( 2008 ), Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Stanley , E. ( 1992 ), The Auto/Biographical I: Theory & Practice of Feminist Auto/Biography , Manchester University Press , Manchester .

Stanley , E. ( 1993 ), “ On auto/biography in sociology ”, Sociology , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 41 - 52 .

Stenhouse , L. ( 1975 ), An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development , Heinemann , London .

Tinkler , P. and Jackson , C. ( 2004 ), The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook , Open University Press/McGraw Hill , Maidenhead .

Trafford , V. ( 2003 ), “ Questions in doctoral vivas: views from the inside ”, Quality Assurance in Education , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 114 - 122 .

Trafford , V. and Leshem , S. ( 2002 ), “ Starting at the end to undertake doctoral research: predictable questions as stepping stones ”, Higher Education Review , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 31 - 49 .

Trafford , V. and Leshem , S. ( 2009 ), “ Doctorateness as a threshold concept ”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 305 - 316 .

Van Gennep , A. ( 1909/1961 ), The Rites of Passage , University of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL .

Wellington , J. ( 2013 ), “ Searching for doctorateness ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 38 No. 10 , pp. 1490 - 1503 .

Wisker , G.M and Kiley ( 2014 ), “ Professional learning: lessons for supervision from doctoral examining ”, International Journal for Academic Development , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 125 - 138 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Doctoral examiners’ narratives of learning to examine in the PhD viva: a call for support

• Published: 12 August 2022
• Volume 86 , pages 527–539, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Wee Chun Tan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6521-5748 1  

622 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

This study aims to better understand the learning experiences of doctoral examiners in relation to their assessment practices in the PhD viva, which directly impacts the PhD candidates’ success in doctoral assessment. A narrative approach was employed to uncover the narratives of learning to examine in the PhD viva from twelve doctoral examiners in Malaysia. Based on the thematic analysis, examiners mainly learned from their own experiences and trial and error. Additionally, they hardly receive any institutional training on how to examine in the PhD viva. This suggests a need to support examiners, especially novice examiners, in their assessment endeavours. The findings contribute to the literature on doctoral examiner experiences by raising several important questions regarding examiner practices in the PhD viva and calling for institutional support. The study provides insights into how academic developers can support doctoral examiners more effectively in the PhD viva to ensure quality in doctoral assessment and a positive examination experience for doctoral examiners and candidates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Retrospective PhD by Publication: A Lesser Doctorate?

Rethinking Evidence: Assessment in the History Discipline in Australian Universities

Introduction: demystifying the phd by publication.

Arnkoff, D. B., Glass, C. R., & Robinson, A. S. (1992). Cognitive processes, anxiety, and performance on doctoral dissertation oral examinations. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 39 (3), 382–388.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., & Sorensen, I. C. & Walker, D. A. (2018). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Badaruddin, M. (2010, June 17). Managing international students in Malaysia: Issues & strategies [Paper presentation]. Internationalization and Marketing of Higher Education Malaysia Seminar, Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.

Baldacchino, G. (1995). Reflections on the status of a doctoral defence. Journal of Graduate Education, 1 (3), 71–76.

Google Scholar  

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning . Kogan Page.

Boyd, E., & Fales, A. (1983). Reflective learning: The key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23 (2), 99–117.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18 (1), 121.

Carter, S. (2008). Examining the doctoral thesis: A discussion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45 (4), 365–374.

Chen, S. (2011). Making sense of the doctoral dissertation defense: A student-experience-based perspective. In L. McAlphine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), doctoral. Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. Springer, Netherlands.

Chen, S. (2014). Balancing knowing and not-knowing: An exploration of doctoral candidates’ performance of researcher selves in the dissertation defence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (3), 364–379.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Clarke, G., & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph.D.: How is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 39 (7), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870970

Cooksey, R. & McDonald, G. (2011). Surviving and thriving in postgraduate research . Tilde Publishing.

Creswell, J. W. (2007).  Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches  (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Cresswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.) . Sage Publications.

Denicolo, P., Duke, D. & Reeves, J. (2020). Delivering inspiring doctoral assessment. Sage Publications.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage publications.

Dewey, J. (1933).  How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . Heath and Company.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods . Further Education Unit.

Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: What thesis students should know. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (5), 563–576.

Houston, G. (2021). Doctoral examiners’ judgements: Do examiners agree on doctoral attributes and how important are professional and personal characteristics? In A. Lee and R Bongaardt (eds). The Future of Doctoral Research: Challenges and Opportunities. Routledge.

Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of the purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 (4), 355–366.

Jarvis, P. (1992). Reflective practice and nursing. Nurse Education Today, 12 , 174–181.

Kelly, F. (2010). Reflecting on the purpose of the PhD oral examination. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies., 45 (1), 77–85.

Kiley, M. (2009). ‘You don’t want a smart Alec’: Selecting examiners to assess doctoral dissertations. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (8), 889–903.

Kolb, A. D. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson FT Press.

Kumar, V., Kaur, A., & Sanderson, L. J. (2022). PhD orals from the convenors’ perspective: Implications for academics and candidates. International Journal for Academic Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2022.2051516

Kyvik, S. (2014). Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA, the UK and Sweden. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (2), 140–153.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32 (3), 3–24.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015, August 21). Malaysia education blueprint 2015–2025 . https://www.um.edu.my/docs/um-magazine/4-executive-summary-pppm-2015-2025.pdf

Ministry of Higher Education. (2018, September 1). Statistik pendidikan tinggi 2018 . https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik/stat-2018/224-statistik-pt-2018-03-bab-1-makro-institusi-pendidikan-tinggi/file

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). “It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (4), 369–386.

Murray, R. (2009). How to survive your viva: Defending a thesis in an oral examination. Open University Press.

Nir, A., & Bogler, R. (2021). International examiners’ participation of the Viva: A ritual or an actual indicator of research quality? Quality Assurance in Education., 29 (2/3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2021-0005

Pearce, L. (2005). How to examine a thesis . Open University Press-McGraw-Hill.

Powell, S., & Green, H. (2007). The doctorate worldwide . McGraw-Hill.

Quacquarelli Symonds (2022, June 13). QS World University Rankings 2023 . https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2023

Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defences. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (1), 5–23.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.

Sikes, P. (2017). And then he threatened to kill himself: Nightmare viva stories as opportunities for learning. Qualitative Research Journal., 17 (4), 230–242.

Share, M. (2016). The PhD viva: A space for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development., 21 (3), 178–193.

Smith, P. (2014). The PhD viva: How to prepare for your oral examination . Palgrave Macmillan.

Swales, J. M. (2004). The Ph.D. defense . In J. M. Swales (Ed.), Research genres: Explorations and applications (pp. 145–172). Cambridge University Press.

Tan, W. C. (2022). Speaking the language of defence: Narratives of doctoral examiners on the PhD viva . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-01-2022-0009

Book   Google Scholar  

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: Institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 167–180.

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2002). In the dark? Preparing for the PhD viva. Quality Assurance in Education, 10 (2), 86–97.

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors . Open University Press.

Trafford, V. (2003). Questions in doctoral vivas: Views from the inside. Quality Assurance in Education, 11 (2), 114–122.

Trafford, V., & Leshlem, S. (2008). Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start. Open University Press.

Wallace, S. (2003). Figuratively speaking: Six accounts of the PhD viva. Quality Assurance in Education, 11 (2), 100–108.

Wellington, J. (2010). Supporting students preparation for the viva: Their preconceptions and implications for practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (1), 71–84.

Wisker, G., & Kiley, M. (2014). Professional learning: Lessons for supervision from doctoral examining. International Journal for Academic Development, 19 (2), 125–138.

Wisker, G., Highman, L., Spronken-Smith, R., & Waghorne, J. (2022). Across time and space: Examiner and candidate experiences of online doctoral vivas. Innovations in Education and Teaching International., 59 (2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2022528

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Wee Chun Tan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wee Chun Tan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tan, W.C. Doctoral examiners’ narratives of learning to examine in the PhD viva: a call for support. High Educ 86 , 527–539 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00913-w

Download citation

Accepted : 08 August 2022

Published : 12 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00913-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Examiner practices
• Professional learning
• Doctoral assessment
• Doctoral education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Top 18 PhD Viva Questions | Examples

The PhD viva is an oral assessment held by a committee during the PhD defense. This evaluation involves the committee posing inquiries to the PhD candidate regarding their research work and dissertation.

The candidate must showcase their expertise in the field and how it relates to their project’s focus. The primary aim of the PhD viva is to ascertain if the candidate has fulfilled the criteria for obtaining their degree.

This article explores the PhD viva questions, provides 18 sample questions, and offers advice on responding to them effectively.

• Table of Contents

A PhD viva, also known as a viva voce, is the concluding assessment where a candidate addresses inquiries posed by an academic committee regarding their completed work and understanding of their chosen field.

It serves to evaluate whether the candidate has effectively shown their comprehension of their specific research domain to produce original contributions.

The questions asked during a PhD viva typically come from the candidate’s original work proposal and other submitted written materials.

Types of PhD Viva Questions

Examiners typically prepare a set of questions for candidates to address during the PhD viva voce exam. These questions primarily center around the candidate’s thesis.

However, the questions asked in PhD viva exams can generally be categorized into four main areas:

• General Questions
• Research Context and Methods
• Analysis and Findings
• Discussions and Conclusion/Implications

Therefore, as you prepare for your PhD viva and defend your thesis, it’s crucial to consider the types of questions you might encounter.

This preparation allows you to practice your responses beforehand, ensuring you are not caught off guard during the viva.

Preparing and practicing your responses to questions from these four fundamental categories will significantly help in your preparation efforts.

Frequently Asked Questions for PhD Vivas and How to Answer to Them

While focusing on addressing frequently asked questions may seem straightforward, it’s crucial to prepare for potential follow-up questions. Nervousness can sometimes cause digressions, leading to unexpected inquiries from examiners in areas that may not have been anticipated.

The expectation isn’t for you to simply repeat your thesis. Examiners want to assess your understanding of the research, including its methods, analysis, findings, conclusions, implications, and other relevant aspects.

You should be ready to answer these common questions logically, despite the differences in each PhD viva.

Here are some popular PhD viva questions to prepare for:

 1. Tell me about yourself

Introduce yourself by discussing your research interests, emphasizing the areas that you feel strongly positive about. Mention your past accomplishments briefly and professionally, avoiding any tone of boasting or overwhelming the examiners.

I’m someone who’s deeply passionate about research, particularly in areas where I can make a meaningful impact. My main areas of interest revolve around [specific fields or topics], where I believe there’s immense potential for innovation and discovery. I approach research with a positive mindset, always looking for new insights and solutions to complex problems.

Throughout my academic journey, I’ve had the privilege of contributing to various research projects that have broadened my perspectives and honed my skills. These experiences have taught me the value of collaboration, critical thinking, and perseverance in the research process.

I’m particularly proud of [mention specific achievement or accomplishment], as it demonstrates my ability to navigate challenges and deliver results in a methodical and efficient manner. However, I also recognize that there’s always room for growth and learning in research, and I’m excited about the opportunities ahead to further contribute to the field.

Overall, I approach research with professionalism, enthusiasm, and a commitment to excellence, and I’m eager to continue exploring new avenues of inquiry and making meaningful contributions to the academic community.

2. Why did you choose this research question?

Examiners are interested in hearing specific details about why you are interested in a research topic, including the most captivating aspect, why you chose this research question over others in the same or related field, and any instances that influenced your selection of the research topic and field. It’s essential to plan your answer with these details in mind to provide a comprehensive response.

I chose this research question because it’s really important and can make a big difference in dealing with [specific issue or gap] in [field or discipline]. After looking at different research options, I found this question to be very interesting because it could add a lot to what we already know and help solve real problems. Also, it fits well with what I’ve studied before and what I’m interested in, so I can use my skills and knowledge to explore and solve problems in this area.

3. How did you come up with the idea for this research?

In explaining how you developed your research idea, demonstrate to the viva panel that you thoroughly evaluated all potential research options before choosing the one that optimized your time and resources. Provide specifics about your decision-making process, including why certain ideas were rejected in favor of others and the insights gained from exploring each possibility. This showcases your ability to narrow down options based on factors like feasibility.

I came up with the idea for this research through [specific process or inspiration, such as literature review, personal experience, academic discussions, etc.]. This process involved evaluating various research areas and identifying gaps or opportunities that led to the formulation of the research’s idea.

4. What is your research’s main area of focus?

Keep in mind that your response should not summarize your research but instead discuss the primary focus area of your research. Crucially, to showcase the viability of your research, it’s important to highlight some of the key questions it tackles.

The primary focus area of my research revolves around [specific topic or field], addressing key questions related to [core concepts or issues] within this domain.

5. What methods will you use to evaluate the effectiveness of your research?

To showcase to the viva panel that you have effectively evaluated your research’s effectiveness, contemplate utilizing both qualitative and quantitative measures. Qualitative measures encompass surveys and various data collection techniques that enable you to delve into the fundamental causes of issues, making them suitable for understanding people’s perceptions and sentiments regarding a subject. Quantitative measures involve numerical comparisons across different time frames or locations, such as sales data, providing a comprehensive perspective on performance trends over time. Utilizing these approaches demonstrates to the panel your thorough assessment of the research’s impact.

I will use [specific methods, such as surveys, experiments, interviews, data analysis, etc.] to evaluate the effectiveness of my research. These methods are chosen based on their ability to gather relevant data, analyze findings, and draw meaningful conclusions that address the research objectives and hypotheses.

6. Did the research process proceed as planned, or did you encounter any unexpected circumstances?

The purpose of the question about project execution in a PhD viva is to assess readiness with backup plans for unforeseen situations and to evaluate if the project adhered to the structured plan. It’s important to mention if assistance was received and be prepared for follow-up questions from examiners.

My research mostly went as planned, following the timeline and methods outlined in the proposal. Yet, there were times when unexpected things happened. I had to adjust and use backup plans to deal with these situations quickly, so they didn’t disrupt my research much.

7. What is the future of your research?

When addressing the future of your research area in your viva, it’s crucial to go beyond the current state and consider upcoming developments. Simply focusing on the present might suggest a limited understanding. Instead, provide a comprehensive response by discussing your vision for the research area’s future, its connection to the present, and its significance.

The future of my research involves exploring emerging trends and advancements in [specific area or field], leveraging new technologies and methodologies to address complex challenges. I plan to collaborate with experts in related disciplines, conduct further experiments or surveys, and analyze additional datasets to deepen our understanding of [research topic]. Ultimately, I aim to contribute novel insights and practical solutions that can benefit [target audience or community] and advance the overall knowledge in this field.

8. What are some limitations of your thesis?

If you’re asked about the limitations of your thesis during your PhD viva, ensure your response is clear and concise. To prepare, consider aspects that might be perceived as limitations and address these questions:

• Why is this considered a limitation?
• How could it be improved or made more effective?
• What changes could be made to the research design or data collection methods to address this?
• Are there potential solutions or enhancements that could mitigate this issue?

Some limitations of my thesis include [specific limitations, such as sample size constraints, data availability, potential biases, etc.]. These limitations are considered because [explain why each limitation is relevant]. To improve these limitations, potential strategies could include [suggestions for improvement, such as expanding the sample size, using additional data sources, addressing biases through robust methodologies, etc.]. These enhancements aim to strengthen the overall validity and reliability of the research findings.

9. Is this work original, or have others done something similar before?

When addressing whether your work is original or if others have conducted similar research before, it’s important to distinguish between your original contributions and existing research. You can then elaborate on how you’ve built upon previous work to develop your own ideas. If there are no entirely original aspects, consider discussing aspects of your research that are not yet published but have potential for further development. This approach can provide the panel with insights into the new ideas emerging from your research.

This work is original in [specific aspects or contributions], as it builds upon existing literature and presents novel findings or approaches. While others may have explored related topics or methodologies, the unique combination of [key elements or innovations] distinguishes this research from previous efforts.

10. What benefit does this research provide to society?

When discussing the benefit of your research to society, emphasize your clear and defined goal. Articulate how your research can impact society at large and how it can be utilized or adapted by other researchers working on similar issues.

When discussing the benefit of my research to society, I emphasize a clear and defined goal. My research aims to [specific goal or objective, such as improving healthcare outcomes, addressing environmental challenges, enhancing technological advancements, etc.]. This benefit is significant as it can [describe how the research can positively impact society at large, such as improving quality of life, advancing knowledge, solving practical problems, etc.]. Additionally, my research findings can be utilized or adapted by other researchers working on similar issues, further amplifying its societal impact and relevance.

11. What are the limitations of your research design?

When discussing limitations in your research design during your viva, acknowledge that every design has its constraints. Be transparent about these limitations and explain how you mitigated or addressed them in your study. If your design was particularly good, highlight how it contributed to your results. Conversely, if aspects of your study didn’t go as planned, use this as evidence to analyze potential flaws in your hypothesis.

Some limitations of my research design include [specific limitations, such as sample size constraints, data collection methods, potential biases, etc.]. While these limitations are inherent in any research design, I took several steps to mitigate their impact. For example, I [explain strategies used to address limitations, such as ensuring diverse sample representation, using validated measurement tools, implementing data analysis techniques, etc.]. These efforts aimed to enhance the validity and reliability of my study findings despite the identified limitations.

12. How might your research have been impacted if there were more data available on your topic?

To answer this question, start off by conveying to the panel any limitations found within your research. This is because it allows you to discuss whether additional research would have either prevented or minimised this outcome. For example, you might decide to tell the panel that additional data relevant to the research topic may have been beneficial because then you could test the hypothesis again by running the same tests in other communities. Then you could see if the result was the same with a different audience. Though, this may have resulted in a changed hypothesis.

If more data were available on my research topic, it would have significantly impacted the depth of my study. Firstly, a larger dataset would have allowed for more comprehensive analyses, such as subgroup analyses and advanced statistical modeling techniques. This could have led to more robust findings and a better understanding of the nuances within the data.

Additionally, with more data points, I could have explored additional variables or factors that may influence the outcomes studied in my research. This could have provided a more holistic view of the topic and allowed for a more nuanced interpretation of the results.

Furthermore, more data availability would have increased the statistical power of my study, potentially leading to more reliable and conclusive results. It would have also allowed for a more extensive validation of findings through cross-validation exercises and sensitivity analyses.

Overall, the availability of more data would have enhanced the quality, reliability, and generalizability of my research outcomes, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

13. Has your research challenged or changed how we think about the topic?

To address this question effectively, begin by outlining any constraints identified within your research. This approach enables a discussion on whether further research could have mitigated or avoided these limitations.

For instance, you could mention that having more relevant data on the research topic could have been advantageous. This additional data might have allowed you to retest the hypothesis across diverse communities, potentially leading to variations in results. However, it’s important to note that this could have also led to modifications in the hypothesis itself.

My research has challenged existing perceptions by uncovering previously unexplored facets of the topic. Specifically, I focused on [mention specific concept or theory] and conducted [briefly describe your study]. The results revealed [key findings or insights], which have prompted a reevaluation of [mention the paradigm or conventional understanding]. This shift in perspective has significant implications for [explain the broader impact on the field or applications of the research]. Overall, my research has contributed to a nuanced understanding of the topic and has initiated discussions on revising established frameworks in the academic discourse.

14. Do you think other researchers could replicate the results of your study?

The viva panel considers if other researchers can duplicate your findings to determine the credibility of your research within the field. To address this, consider the distinctiveness of your study compared to previous ones. If you identify unique aspects, explain how they facilitate easier replication by other researchers.

Yes, I believe other researchers would be able to replicate my results. The methodology used in my study is well-documented and follows established protocols, ensuring clarity and consistency in data collection and analysis. Additionally, the unique aspects of my research are clearly outlined, making it easier for others to understand and replicate key elements. Sharing relevant data and resources further enhances the feasibility of replication and promotes transparency in the research process.

15. Could there be other explanations for the results of your research?

This question is a method for the viva examiners to assess your ability to critically evaluate your own research. Begin by conducting a thorough review of the existing literature to identify any alternative explanations for your research findings. If such alternative explanations exist, explain them in detail. On the other hand, if there are no alternative explanations or they are not relevant to your findings, clarify why this is the case. It’s crucial to demonstrate consideration for these alternative perspectives as they contribute to the overall understanding of why your findings are significant.

In my research, I thoroughly examined the existing literature to explore potential alternative explanations for the findings. While there were some theories suggesting alternative interpretations, such as [mention specific theories], further analysis and empirical evidence indicated that these explanations were not as substantiated or relevant to my study’s context.

For instance, [provide an example or detail about why alternative explanations were not applicable]. This analysis supports the robustness and specificity of my findings, as they align with established theories and empirical evidence within the field.

Overall, my research process involved a critical evaluation of potential alternative explanations, ensuring that the conclusions drawn are well-supported and contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge on the topic.

16. Given your research findings, what would be an appropriate course of action for another researcher to pursue in this field?

Consider the type of research you’re conducting as you address this question. Review your completed research and its conclusions to assess their alignment with the hypothesis. Identify any gaps in your research, explain their presence and significance, and discuss what they indicate. Utilize these gaps as a basis for further investigation, outlining your next steps as a student exploring these areas of study.

Based on the findings of my research, a suitable next step for other researchers in this area would be to conduct further investigations into [specific aspect or aspect]. This could involve [suggest a research direction or methodology], which would help to [describe the potential contribution or impact]. Additionally, exploring [related topic or factor] could provide valuable insights into [describe potential outcomes or implications]. Overall, building upon this research could lead to a deeper understanding of [topic or field], benefiting both academia and practical applications.

17. Summarize your thesis.

Familiarize yourself with the entire project, beginning with the rationale behind selecting your thesis topic and concluding with an optimal solution to the problem. Prepare for three types of responses: a 1-minute, 3-5 minutes, and 10-minute summary. Tailor your answer based on the audience’s expectations at the viva.

For the 1-minute summary:

“I chose the topic of my thesis because it addresses a critical gap in the literature and has significant relevance in [specific field]. The problem at hand is [briefly describe the problem]. Through extensive research, I identified key areas for investigation, including [mention key areas]. The optimum solution to this problem involves [briefly outline the solution or approach].”

For the 3-5 minutes summary:

“My thesis topic was carefully selected due to its relevance in [specific field]. The problem I aimed to address is [provide a brief overview of the problem]. This topic intrigued me because [explain why it interested you]. Through thorough research and analysis, I identified several key areas that required exploration, including [list key areas]. The optimal solution to this problem involves [describe the solution or approach in more detail, including any methodologies used].”

For the 10-minute summary:

“The topic of my thesis was chosen based on its critical importance in [specific field]. The problem I sought to tackle is [provide a comprehensive overview of the problem, including its significance]. I was drawn to this topic because [explain your personal interest or motivation]. To address this problem effectively, I conducted extensive literature reviews, data collection, and analysis, focusing on key areas such as [list key areas]. The optimal solution I propose involves [describe the solution or approach in detail, including any innovative methodologies or findings]. This solution not only addresses the immediate problem but also has broader implications for [mention broader implications or potential applications].”

18. What are the research’s strengths and weaknesses?

When discussing your research during a viva examination, it’s important to highlight both its strengths and weaknesses. Begin by emphasizing the strengths and how they connect with key findings, showcasing the robustness of your research. Then, address the limitations and discuss potential strategies to transform them into strengths in future research endeavors. This approach demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of your research and your ability to critically evaluate and improve upon its weaknesses.

The strength of my research lies in its comprehensive analysis of [specific aspect], which has led to significant insights into [key findings or contributions]. This strength is further bolstered by [mention additional strengths, such as methodology, data collection, etc.].

On the other hand, a potential weakness of my research is [identify a weakness, such as sample size limitations, data availability, etc.]. However, this limitation has provided opportunities for future research to explore [potential areas of improvement or expansion].

Overall, the strength of my research lies in its [highlight key strengths], while the weakness serves as a stepping stone for further advancements in the field.

Other articles

Please read through some of our other articles with examples and explanations if you’d like to learn more.

• PLS-SEM model
• Principal Components Analysis
• Multivariate Analysis
• Friedman Test
• Chi-Square Test (Χ²)
• Effect Size
• Critical Values in Statistics
• Statistical Analysis
• Calculate the Sample Size for Randomized Controlled Trials
• Covariate in Statistics
• Avoid Common Mistakes in Statistics
• Standard Deviation
• Derivatives & Formulas
• Build a PLS-SEM model using AMOS
• Principal Components Analysis using SPSS
• Statistical Tools
• Type I vs Type II error
• Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
• Microsoft Excel and SPSS
• One-tailed and Two-tailed Test
• Parametric and Non-Parametric Test

Citation Styles

• APA Reference Page
• MLA Citations
• Chicago Style Format
• “et al.” in APA, MLA, and Chicago Style
• Do All References in a Reference List Need to Be Cited in Text?

Comparision

• Independent vs. Dependent Variable – MIM Learnovate
• Research Article and Research Paper
• Proposition and Hypothesis
• Principal Component Analysis and Partial Least Squares
• Academic Research vs Industry Research
• Clinical Research vs Lab Research
• Research Lab and Hospital Lab
• Thesis Statement and Research Question
• Quantitative Researchers vs. Quantitative Traders
• Premise, Hypothesis and Supposition
• Survey Vs Experiment
• Hypothesis and Theory
• Independent vs. Dependent Variable
• APA vs. MLA
• Ghost Authorship vs. Gift Authorship
• Basic and Applied Research
• Cross-Sectional vs Longitudinal Studies
• Survey vs Questionnaire
• Open Ended vs Closed Ended Questions
• Experimental and Non-Experimental Research
• Inductive vs Deductive Approach
• Null and Alternative Hypothesis
• Reliability vs Validity
• Population vs Sample
• Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Framework
• Bibliography and Reference
• Stratified vs Cluster Sampling
• Sampling Error vs Sampling Bias
• Internal Validity vs External Validity
• Full-Scale, Laboratory-Scale and Pilot-Scale Studies
• Plagiarism and Paraphrasing
• Research Methodology Vs. Research Method
• Mediator and Moderator
•   Dissertation Topic
• Thesis Statement
• Research Proposal
• Research Questions
• Research Problem
• Research Gap
• Types of Research Gaps
• Operationalization of Variables
• Literature Review
• Research Hypothesis
• Questionnaire
• Reliability
• Measurement of Scale
• Sampling Techniques
• Acknowledgements
• Research Methods
• Quantitative Research
• Qualitative Research
• Case Study Research
• Survey Research
• Conclusive Research
• Descriptive Research
• Cross-Sectional Research
• Theoretical Framework
• Conceptual Framework
• Triangulation
• Grounded Theory
• Quasi-Experimental Design
• Mixed Method
• Correlational Research
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Stratified Sampling
• Ethnography
• Ghost Authorship
• Secondary Data Collection
• Primary Data Collection
• Ex-Post-Facto

Misbah Rashid, an expert in Technology Management, holds an MBA and an MS in Information Systems and Technology Management. She has experience teaching marketing and technology in business at the university level.

Related Posts

How to use meta ai for phd research, tips to prepare phd viva-voce presentation slides, who is a good peer reviewer, mastering the art of academic writing: strategies for ph.d. researchers, how to become a postdoctoral researcher, top 10 fellowships to support phd studies in usa, how long does it take for phd in usa | structure, 20 tips for completing your phd in 36 months, resources for phd literature review, top 10 highest paying phd degrees in 2023.

Comments are closed.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

I landed my dream PhD – and it turned into a nightmare

Cutting-edge research, international collaboration and full funding: the project sounded too good to be true. It was.

I signed up for a PhD that should have marked the start of an amazing career – it was a fully-funded position as part of an exciting project that I was enthusiastic to work on. In fact, this decision has done anything but help my career.

I had been in the UK higher education system for five years at that point, having undertaken both my undergraduate and master’s degrees at UK universities. I was lured in by the prospects this PhD offered: international work experience within an exciting research team and the opportunity to develop valuable skills in my field, using cutting-edge techniques. To top it all off, I would get a monthly salary, tuition fees waived, and expenses for conferences, laboratory work and travel would all be covered.

Foolishly, I did very little research on my supervisors, thinking that nothing could go wrong with a project funded by a well-known organisation in one of UK’s leading universities. I was very wrong.

On my arrival, I discovered that my supervisor did not have much knowledge in my area – having not worked directly on it before – and I was the first PhD student they had ever had.

None of the equipment I was supposedly going to learn to use (as mentioned in the original advertisement) was in place. I was left to work with outdated methods that weren’t beneficial to the project or my development. When I raised these issues, I was told that these methods were more financially sustainable and that the university could not invest in the equipment at the moment.

To make matters worse, international collaboration was never made possible. In fact, it was actively discouraged on several occasions.

I tried numerous times to address these issues with my supervisors, since I was getting worried about the prospects for my PhD. They didn’t seem interested. After more than a year of this situation, I told them that I was extremely unhappy with the project and that things needed to change.

They denied my concerns. The equipment was not necessary for my research, they said, and the statements and opportunities mentioned in the original proposal were not written in stone. I was referred to the departmental tutor for “advice”, but was instead told to decide whether I wanted to stay or quit. I was offered no support in trying to resolve any of the issues that I had raised.

I contacted my funding body about the situation. I hoped that this would spark some interest in trying to find a solution so I would be able to continue; it said there was not much it could do. It seemed that the organisation had given its money to a project that couldn’t have worked in the way it was intended.

I had no choice but to quit. My issues were not recognised as valid by the department, my supervisors or the university – I later found out that my withdrawal had been put down to “personal and health issues”, which made me feel even worse.

This experience has taught me a lot about how universities operate – I have learned these lessons the hard way. The best advice I can offer to anyone considering a PhD is to do a lot of research before starting. Get to know your supervisor’s area of expertise, the university and the department. Visit the university to get an idea of the facilities that are available. Ask as many questions as you can before you start. Know your rights. Don’t trust that you will be given what you are promised. Be wary about signing up to something that seems too good to be true.

The damage this has inflicted on my career and my ambition is immense. It made me lose my motivation and passion for a subject that I loved. I just hope that sharing my experience means more will be done in the future to check projects before they are funded so that cases like mine cannot happen again.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered . And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at [email protected]

• Universities
• Academics anonymous
• Higher education
• University management and administration

Most viewed