Vetting call over ‘asshole’ PhD examiners, ‘trial-by-fire’ vivas

Most PhD examiners think the UK’s “closed-door” vivas should be reformed to include more transparent forms of assessment used in Europe and America, according to a new study that highlights concerns over the prevalence of examiners who refuse to change their “macho trial-by-fire attitude” towards oral examinations.

Nearly all the 317 examiners who responded to a survey by University of Birmingham researchers agreed that there was a need to improve policies and procedures related to the viva voce examination, with three-quarters (73 per cent) urging greater diligence in examiner selection and two-thirds (66 per cent) calling for more precise guidance for examiners regarding their behaviour.

Those concerns were echoed in “particularly strong language” used by academics to “describe examiners they felt behaved unprofessionally”, explains the study published recently in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education.

One examiner argued the UK’s closed-door viva system encouraged a “very British attitude – among some colleagues and at some institutions – of deliberately intimidating candidates rather than making the defence a situation in which candidates will be challenged in a nuanced and thoughtful way”.

Others agreed, with the study noting a “recurring theme was the perception that the UK viva system remains steeped in outdated traditions, with some examiners treating it as a rite of passage rather than a fair academic evaluation”.

Several respondents claimed the viva system “remains shaped by traditional power structures, with white men disproportionately holding institutional authority”, with one claiming the “current system is just quite masculine in its set-up – almost like a duel”.

Another laid the blame for confrontational vivas on “asshole academics who refuse to change from their macho, trial-by-fire attitude”. “Academic egos” were also raised as a problem by several respondents, with one complaining about “established academics [who are] angry about a young scholar at the start of their career not citing enough of [their] publications”.

Campus resource: How to answer viva questions

To combat this kind of behaviour, examiners should be vetted more robustly, with feedback from PhD candidates and other examiners used to prevent problem examiners from sitting on panels, some respondents suggested.  

“In most instances, we know who the arseholes are. We need to keep them away from our students,” said one examiner, while another suggested a “three strikes – never examine again” policy for problematic examiners who were variously described as “sociopaths”, “dicks” and “wankers”.

“I was surprised by the language used by respondents, but it suggests it is an emotive topic,” lead author Zoe Stephenson, who conducted the study with Birmingham colleague Amy Jackson, told Times Higher Education.

Noting the complaints about “aggressive” examining styles, Stephenson, an assistant professor in forensic psychology, said the results highlighted the need for more diligence in selecting PhD examiners.

Others believed the problems with closed-door vivas related more to the fact they were one-off events – unlike in the US, where examiners regularly check the progress of candidates – creating a “high-stakes” situation which “feels a bit punitive in its nature, and unnecessary”. Normalising repeat vivas would mean “students would feel less worried about being the ‘one who failed’”, suggested one examiner.

Overall, 66 per cent of respondents agreed there was a need for wider discussions around the role and purpose of the closed-door viva, with 54 per cent saying these should consider what, if anything, can be learned from viva practices in other countries, where the viva is a public event.

However, many scholars questioned whether the UK should move to a Scandinavian system in which assessment is almost entirely focused on the dissertation and the viva is a ritualised ceremonial event. One described it as the “best and most effective method for evaluating how much learning has taken place and how much of the student’s work is their own”.

“Some people thought the open-door approach would be beneficial, but others highlighted the flipside, saying it could be more difficult for students to speak in public. There are different pros and cons,” said Stephenson, who stressed the complaints outlined in the study were likely to relate to a “minority of PhD vivas”.

An intriguing possibility raised by the study was that UK academics and PhD graduates are happy with the closed-door arrangements, however imperfect, because it preserves the mystery of the viva.

“By exaggerating or even manufacturing claims of harsh treatment in the viva, students can present themselves as tough and proud survivors; it’s much more impressive to say that you went through hell than that the examiners were sweet to you,” said one respondent.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com