Give PhD students discussion points for viva, UK examiners urged

Academics should specify the exact areas of a thesis on which they wish to ask questions during a PhD candidate’s viva, says a review of UK doctoral examination practices which has urged scholars to challenge the discourse that PhD study “is just meant to be hard”.

The call to provide a list of areas of a PhD thesis that could be discussed is one of several recommendations made by researchers at the University of Warwick to help PhD assessment become more inclusive.

The study, launched on 28 February, also suggests online vivas, or even written vivas, could be offered to all students, while a viva format in which the student presents on their thesis for 10 minutes before the discussion could be made standard. Examiners should also schedule breaks within the viva, offer the possibility of additional breaks and state the maximum length of a viva.

Pre-viva conversations with a supervisor and a mock viva could also be made standard practice, while supervisors should be asked to avoid multipart questions that could potentially confuse students, the study suggests.

The recommendations follow a review of doctoral practices at several UK universities, as well as interviews with PhD students, supervisors and examiners at Warwick, which highlighted different approaches to the viva examination across departments and institutions and a lack of awareness among doctoral candidates about viva examinations.

More consideration should also be given to the post-viva corrections period – a stressful phase when PhD funding has often expired and pressure to get a job is looming, it adds.

The study also focused on how examiners could make reasonable adjustments for doctoral candidates with disabilities – in particular those on the autistic spectrum who struggle with social interaction and communication.

According to the study, some supervisors and students were reluctant for a full list of questions to be provided in advance, arguing that this could undermine the educational value of a viva and the integrity of a doctorate, but they were more open to stating the areas on which a candidate might be quizzed.

That adjustment could become a “universal accommodation” for all candidates, reflecting concerns over “fairness to other students”, the authors suggest.

“That was definitely the most controversial area of the study,” said Emily Henderson, director of Warwick’s Doctoral Education and Academia Research Centre, explaining that “in some countries it’s normal to provide questions in advance, though there is a less of a history of this in the UK”.

Given the rise of AI-generated essays, the PhD viva is perhaps even more crucial for “checking candidates had written their theses”, said Henderson who nonetheless felt a list of areas on which discussions would hinge could assist students suffering from anxiety, while preserving the viva’s integrity.

Allowing PhD students with additional needs to bring an “advocate” into their viva also raised concerns among some supervisors, who were keen to ensure advocates focused solely on the well-being of students, rather than providing academic input.

James Burford, associate professor of global education and international development at Warwick, who led the study, said the project’s recommendations are designed to “demystify” the PhD examination process for students “who “did not know what a viva entails and did not know what kind of reasonable adjustments they needed or could request”.

While focus groups with supervisors and students had stressed the need for vivas to contain “robust and rigorous exchanges, there is a need to make sure vivas are inclusive,” continued Burford.

“A gladiatorial approach to these exchanges is going to disproportionately disadvantage some students who might otherwise perform well,” he said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com