Preparing doctoral candidates for the viva: issues for students and supervisors

Abstract

The PhD viva has been described as mysterious (Burnham, 1994;Morley et al, 2002), unpredictable (Rugg and Petre, 2004) and potentially fearful for students (Delamont et al, 2004), with its form and duration a function of the predilections of individual examiners as well as a function of differences across disciplines. Despite its myriad manifestations the PhD viva voce (live voice), as oral examination of the doctoral thesis, constitutes the final 'test' of the PhD endeavour. In the UK this is a private event, though in some countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, for example, the viva is conducted in a public arena (Delamont et al, 2004). Although there is no standard or prescribed format, students across all disciplines can expect to defend their thesis with this involving questioning, clarification and discussion of key elements. This critical commentary discusses a number of issues that inform the preparation of students focusing on the role of the internal and external examiner, the viva voce process, guidance for students and some practical suggestions for supervisors and students, particularly the value of full role-play in building students' confidence. The extent to which the doctoral viva, in its current 'secret' form, can be seen as a fully accountable and independently rigorous process is taken up in the conclusion that highlights the phenomenon of 'cosy' reciprocal examining arrangements, the spectre of litigation when things go wrong and the need to consider a fundamental review of both the purpose and conduct of the viva.

In defence of the viva voce: Eighteen candidates' voices

“…The findings identify key issues of transparency and equity of the viva voce process, supporting the writing of others over the last twenty or more years, for example Baldacchino (1995), Trafford (2003), Wellington (2010), Watts (2011) and Poole (2015). However, our findings also identify power of examiners operating across the participants' experiences within all four themes.…”

“…Far less attention has been paid to actual doctoral assessment. What is available raises issues of equity and ethical practice and indicates a lack of transparency in the examination (Hartley and Fox, 2004;Jackson and Tinkler, 2000;Park, 2005;Trafford, 2003;Wallace, 2003;Wallace and Marsh, 2001;Watts, 2011, Poole, 2015.…”

Students’ Perception of Doctoral Defense Formats

“…Since the defense is a form of an oral exam, and crucial in obtaining the doctoral degree, it is important for candidates and committee members to understand the requirements. This preparation is important so that students can know what to expect during the doctoral defense, as this knowledge will help them prepare properly for the defense [2]. In terms of what students want from their defense, Wellington [3] observed that they want a "quality experience": a challenging experience that allows for deep discussion with experts in the field, and a process that allows feedback and the opportunity to improve.…”

Matching final assessment to employability: developing a digital viva as an end of programme assessment

“…Historically, the viva voce, or oral examination played a central role in the assessment of learning outcomes, with its multiplicity of purposes applied to such programmes as clinical dentistry, medical studies and social sciences to name but a few (Kehm, 2001;Mandus, Russell, & Higgins, 2009). The viva voce is from the Latin meaning 'live voice' or oral examination in which a student or candidate answers questions from an examiner (Watts, 2012). Viva voce as a term was first used in the sixteenth century but the practice of oral examination may pre-date this common usage (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2018).…”