how to examine a thesis

The Society for Research into Higher Education

How to Examinea Thesis

Rowena Murray

Lynne Pearce

Ho

w to

Ex

amin

e a Th

esisM

urray an

d P

earce

HOW TO EXAMINE A THESIS

• What is involved in examining a research-based higher degree?• What are the roles of the internal and external examiners?• What are the hidden agendas of higher degree examining?• What are the essential ingredients of a ‘good’ viva?

This handbook offers a revealing insight into the written – andunwritten – rules and regulations of higher degree examination inthe UK today. Addressed directly to the examiners, it contains a step-by-step account of the different stages of the examinationprocess in order to provide an insiders’ guide into what to expectbefore, during and after the oral examination.

How to Examine a Thesis covers such important issues such as:

• The power-relations between the two (or more) examiners• Hidden agendas and foul play• Examples of guidelines and regulations across different

institutions• Advice on MPhil as well as PhD examinations

This book is essential reading for all higher degree examiners but is also of importance to those supervising, and studying for, higherdegrees. Moreover, although the book focuses primarily on currentpractices in the UK, comparisons are drawn with ContinentalEurope, Australia and the United States. Examiners, supervisors andstudents throughout the world will therefore find the book of considerable interest.

Lynne Pearce is Professor of Literary Theory in the Department ofEnglish and Creative Writing at Lancaster University. In recent yearsshe has been Director of Postgraduate Studies in her department andAssociate Dean for Postgraduate Teaching for the Humanities Faculty. She is convenor of the Humanities Faculty’s ‘ResearchMethods seminars’ and has supervised thirteen PhD students to successful completion. She has also examined in excess of twentyMPhil and PhD theses both in the UK and overseas.

cover design: Kate Prentice

� ��

��

How to Examine a Thesis

SRHE and Open University Press imprintGeneral Editor: Heather Eggins

Current titles include:

Catherine Bargh et al.: University LeadershipRonald Barnett: Beyond all ReasonRonald Barnett: Higher EducationRonald Barnett: Realizing the University in an Age of SupercomplexityRonald Barnett: The Limits of CompetenceRonald Barnett and Kelly Coate: Engaging the Curriculum in Higher EducationTony Becher and Paul R. Trowler: Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd edn)Neville Bennett et al.: Skills Development in Higher Education and EmploymentJohn Biggs: Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd edn)Richard Blackwell and Paul Blackmore (eds): Towards Strategic Staff Development in Higher EducationDavid Boud et al. (eds): Using Experience for LearningDavid Boud and Nicky Solomon (eds): Work-based LearningTom Bourner et al. (eds): New Directions in Professional Higher EducationJohn Brennan et al. (eds): What Kind of University?Anne Brockbank and Ian McGill: Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher EducationStephen D. Brookfield and Stephen Preskill: Discussion as a Way of TeachingAnn Brooks and Alison Mackinnon (eds): Gender and the Restructured UniversitySally Brown and Angela Glasner (eds): Assessment Matters in Higher EducationBurton R. Clark: Sustaining Change in UniversitiesJames Cornford and Neil Pollock: Putting the University OnlineJohn Cowan: On Becoming an Innovative University TeacherSara Delamont and Paul Atkinson: Successful Research CareersSara Delamont, Paul Atkinson and Odette Parry: Supervising the Doctorate (2nd edn)Gerard Delanty: Challenging KnowledgeChris Duke: Managing the Learning UniversityHeather Eggins (ed.): Globalization and Reform in Higher EducationHeather Eggins and Ranald Macdonald (eds): The Scholarship of Academic DevelopmentGillian Evans: Academics and the Real WorldAndrew Hannan and Harold Silver: Innovating in Higher EducationLee Harvey et al.: The Student Satisfaction ManualDavid Istance, Hans Schuetze and Tom Schuller (eds): International Perspectives on Lifelong LearningNorman Jackson and Helen Lund (eds): Benchmarking for Higher EducationMerle Jacob and Tomas Hellström (eds): The Future of Knowledge Production in the AcademyPeter Knight: Being a Teacher in Higher EducationPeter Knight and Paul Trowler: Departmental Leadership in Higher EducationPeter Knight and Mantz Yorke: Assessment, Learning and EmployabilityRay Land: Educational DevelopmentMary Lea and Barry Stierer (eds): Student Writing in Higher EducationDina Lewis and Barbara Allan: Virtual Learning CommunitiesIan McNay (ed.): Higher Education and its CommunitiesElaine Martin: Changing Academic WorkLouise Morley: Quality and Power in Higher EducationLynne Pearce: How to Examine a ThesisMoira Peelo and Terry Wareham (eds): Failing Students in Higher EducationCraig Prichard: Making Managers in Universities and CollegesMichael Prosser and Keith Trigwell: Understanding Learning and TeachingJohn Richardson: Researching Student LearningStephen Rowland: The Enquiring University TeacherMaggi Savin-Baden: Facilitating Problem-based LearningMaggi Savin-Baden: Problem-based Learning in Higher EducationMaggi Savin-Baden and Kay Wilkie: Challenging Research in Problem-based LearningDavid Scott, Andrew Brown, Ingrid Lunt and Lucy Thorne: Examining Professional DoctoratesPeter Scott (ed.): The Globalization of Higher EducationPeter Scott: The Meanings of Mass Higher EducationMichael L. Shattock: Managing Successful UniversitiesMaria Slowey and David Watson: Higher Education and the LifecourseAnthony Smith and Frank Webster (eds): The Postmodern University?Colin Symes and John McIntyre (eds): Working KnowledgePeter G. Taylor: Making Sense of Academic LifeRichard Taylor, Jean Barr and Tom Steele: For a Radical Higher EducationMalcolm Tight: Researching Higher EducationPenny Tinkler and Carolyn Jackson: The Doctoral Examination ProcessSusan Toohey: Designing Courses for Higher EducationPaul R. Trowler (ed.): Higher Education Policy and Institutional ChangeMelanie Walker (ed.): Reconstructing Professionalism in University TeachingMelanie Walker and Jon Nixon (eds): Reclaiming Universities from a Runaway WorldDavid Warner and David Palfreyman (eds): Higher Education Management of UK Higher EducationGareth Williams (ed.): The Enterprising UniversityDiana Woodward and Karen Ross: Managing Equal Opportunities in Higher Education

How to Examine aThesis

Lynne Pearce

Society for Research into Higher Education& Open University Press

Open University PressMcGraw-Hill EducationMcGraw-Hill HouseShoppenhangers RoadMaidenheadBerkshireEnglandSL6 2QL

email: [email protected] wide web: www.openup.co.uk

and Two Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA

First published 2005

Copyright © Lynne Pearce 2005

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose ofcriticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of thepublisher or a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Details of suchlicences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the CopyrightLicensing Agency Ltd of 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4LP.

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 335 21442 8 (pb) 0 335 21443 6 (hb)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataCIP data has been applied for

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, SuffolkPrinted in the UK by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

Contents

Acknowledgements viii

Introduction: the ‘Rough Guide’ to higher degree examining 1Scenario 1: the nit-picker 2Scenario 2: the jealous colleague 3Scenario 3: foul play 5Scenario 4: the good viva 7

1 Higher degree examining in the UK today 111.1 Examining higher degrees 111.2 Categories of degree that are examined 161.3 QAA: new legislation and initiatives 191.4 Induction and training of examiners 231.5 Variable practice in examining 241.6 Disciplinary differences 241.7 Examining overseas students 261.8 The politics of PhD examining 27

2 Your appointment as examiner 302.1 Being approached to examine a thesis: what you need to know 302.2 Training, induction and guidelines 342.3 Institutional formalities: what you need to check out in advance 352.4 Fees, expenses and taxation: procedures you should know

about 352.5 Receiving the thesis: checking the paperwork 372.6 Criteria for assessment: M.Phil, PhD and others 372.7 Results/recommendations 42

3 Reading the thesis 473.1 Reading the thesis: diligence vs. expedience 473.2 Different ways of reading and assessing the thesis 49

3.3 Evaluating hypothesis and argument: what is the centralresearch question? 51

3.4 Evaluating fulfilment of ‘stated objectives’: how to recognizethe achievement of goals 52

3.5 Evaluating methodology: theory and practice 533.6 Assessing originality 553.7 Assessing ‘knowledge of the field’: coverage vs. focus 573.8 Plagiarism: what to do if you suspect it 583.9 Writing the pre-viva report: guidelines and conventions 60

4 Preparing for the viva 654.1 Making contact with the other examiner(s): when and how? 654.2 Etiquette, regulations and cautions 664.3 Protecting the interests of the student before the viva 674.4 Arriving at a provisional recommendation pre-viva 674.5 What if your provisional recommendation is a ‘fail’? 684.6 What happens when the examiners disagree? 694.7 Cancelling or deferring the viva 704.8 Preparing questions for the viva 714.9 Opening questions 724.10 Questions about theory and method 734.11 Questions about hypothesis and argument 744.12 Testing points of weakness or ambiguity 754.13 Testing the candidate’s knowledge of the field 764.14 Last-minute preparations 77

5 The viva 795.1 The role of the internal and external examiners at the viva 805.2 More than one internal/external examiner? 815.3 Role of the chair, supervisor(s) and others at the viva 825.4 Examination practice at different institutions 855.5 Meeting of examiners before the viva 865.6 Preparing the room for the viva 865.7 Meeting and greeting the candidate 875.8 Advising the candidate of the result at the start of the viva

(or not) 885.9 Testing that the thesis is the candidate’s own work 895.10 Making sure the candidate understands your questions 905.11 Responding to the candidate 915.12 Coping with a candidate who dries up or breaks down 925.13 Taking notes in the viva and/or tape-recording 925.14 Conventions for making a decision: should the candidate leave

the room? 935.15 Changes and corrections: ensuring clarity 945.16 Providing a post-viva strategy 95

vi Contents

5.17 Inviting the supervisor to attend the discussions concerningthe corrections 96

5.18 Congratulating the candidate 965.19 ‘Going to lunch’: etiquette and usual practice following the viva 97

6 After the viva 986.1 Filling in the post-viva report 986.2 What to do if you suspect foul play 996.3 Changes and corrections: what you need to send the candidate

and by when 1016.4 Procedures for examining major corrections and referrals 1016.5 On receipt of the corrected thesis 1026.6 Approval of minor corrections: normal procedures and

variables 1036.7 Re-examining the thesis: a second viva? 1046.8 Complaints and appeals: are you involved? 1066.9 Claiming fees and expenses 1076.10 Writing references for the candidate and helping with

subsequent publication plans 1086.11 Learning from the experience: debriefing 109

Notes 112Bibliography 114Index 117

Contents vii

Acknowledgements

With special thanks to Rowena Murray whose idea this book was and whohelped to write the proposal; her own volume, How to Survive Your Viva(Open University Press 2003), is a key point of reference for much of thediscussion here.

Thanks also to Penny Tinkler and Carolyn Jackson whose The DoctoralExamination Process (Open Univerisity Press 2004) came out just as I wascompleting this volume and whose extensive research on PhD examination inthe UK has helpfully endorsed, and supported, a good deal of what I have to say.

In addition, I am extremely grateful to my colleagues in the GraduateSchool/Postgraduate Registry at Lancaster University for furnishing me withdetailed advice on the rules and regulations of higher degree examining: inparticular, Michael Seymour (Secretary to the Graduate School Committee)and Chris Park (Director of the Graduate School) for the trouble they havetaken in responding to my (endless!) queries. Chris and Michael also initi-ated the working group on ‘Best Practice in the Viva’ in 2002/3 and it waspartly my involvement in that group – as well as my period as Associate Deanfor Postgraduate Studies in the Humanities – that made me especially keento write this book.

Another long-term support and inspiration has been John Wakeford(former Head of the Innovation and Enterprise Unit at Lancaster Universityand now Head of the Missenden Centre for Innovation in HigherEducation), whose efforts to improve postgraduate education in the UK arelegendary. John commented helpfully on the proposal and has since held aseminar [at Missenden] dedicated to higher degree examining.

For their insiders’ information on the higher degree examination processin different countries and/or disciplines I am also extremely grateful to:Hilary Fraser (University College, Birkbeck, London); Janice Helland(Queen’s Univeristy, Kingston, Canada); Marianne Liljestrom (University ofTurku, Finland); Sara Mills (Sheffield Hallam University); and Viv and BrianTabner (University of Lancaster).

And final thanks, of course, to Shona Mullen and the editorial team atOpen University Press who have supported the project from beginningto end.

Lynne Pearce

Acknowledgements ix

Introduction: the ‘Rough Guide’ to higherdegree examining

Being asked to examine a doctoral thesis is one of the greatest honours youcan be afforded as an academic. It means you have acquired a reputation anda level of expertise in your own work that entitles you to pass judgement onothers working in the same field. In the case of external examiners, it willalso almost certainly mean that you have achieved promotion (senior lec-turer or above) and, by corollary, that your name will have sufficient weightand kudos in the academic world when the candidate subsequentlyapproaches you for a reference.

There is good reason to open this book with a consideration of whatexamining a thesis means to examiners in ‘identity’ terms. With such modestfinancial rewards attached (see 2.4), we have to address head-on why anyacademic is prepared to undertake such a tough and time-consuming job.The fact that often we are flattered into it on the grounds of our ‘reputation’and ‘standing’ takes us straight to an ever-present issue in the UK higherdegree examination process: while the examiners’ status, reputation and‘ego’ are usually (though not exclusively) proven and intact, those of thecandidate are not. During the process of the examination – up to and includ-ing the viva – he or she is thus acutely vulnerable. This is surely first amongthe reasons why being asked to examine a doctoral thesis is not only one ofthe greatest honours you can be afforded as an academic; it is also one of thegreatest responsibilities.

Although this book centres on the practical advice needed to make you agood and efficient examiner of higher degrees, it begins with this ethicalpoint as a consequence of having seen too many young – and not so young –lives torn apart by poor and/or irresponsible examining. While I agree thata good deal of the responsibility for ‘improving standards’ lies with thehigher education institutions (HEIs) and funding councils (see discussionsin Chapter 1), ‘old habits’ are not going to change overnight, and I thereforetrust that examiners will be prepared to initiate some modest improvementsthemselves.

For the stark fact of the matter is this: a bad examination experience at

higher degree level can ruin someone’s life and career, perhaps indefinitely.This is not to say that examiners should withhold themselves from ‘failing’ or‘referring’ substandard work. In many instances this is the only fair andsensible result (i.e. candidates have a right to know if they are capable ofbringing their work up to the required standard). The issue, rather, is theway in which the decision is arrived at and worked through with thecandidate.

Although current examination arrangements mitigate against it – in par-ticular the ‘closed door’ nature of the viva (see 1.1) – it is surely theresponsibility of examiners to present their conclusions to the candidate inas positive and constructive a light as possible. This might seem obvious, butresearch and anecdotal evidence suggests that it is far from the commonexperience (see Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 161–77). Indeed, the currentnorm would seem to be for the majority of candidates to leave their vivasfeeling deflated or depressed whatever the result. Candidates with few, orno, corrections have been known to exit their exam rooms feeling moredispirited – and believing their work to be more ‘worthless’ – than otherswho have been ‘referred’ (see 2.7).

To illustrate more graphically the range of experiences that can beset bothcandidate and examiners when they submit themselves to the final hurdle ofdoctoral examination – the viva – I have elected to begin with four ‘casestudies’. Each of these is based on the known, or reported, real-life experi-ences of candidates and examiners, although a number of different accountshave been synthesized in each scenario and other changes made to protectthe anonymity of those concerned. It is hoped – in the spirit of the RoughGuides to international travel – that these ‘unofficial’ snapshots of higherdegree examining will furnish readers with an immediate sense of theexperience ‘on the ground’.

Scenario 1: the nit-picker1

Stephanie is a very talented, young PhD student who has completedher PhD in less than the three years formally required. Because she iseager to launch herself onto the academic job market, her supervisorsupports her decision to submit the thesis early. The supervisor is con-fident of the candidate’s ability to pass: the thesis is highly original,extensively researched and well written. On her final read of the draftversion the supervisor advises Stephanie that the thesis presentationdoesn’t, as yet, wholly conform to Modern Languages Association(MLA) standards and – while attempting to clean up the text as bestshe can – advises her that a thorough overhaul is necessary. She doesnot, however, see the final version of the thesis before it is submitted.

Because of the under-researched subject area of the thesis, Stephanieand her supervisor have struggled to find an ideal external examiner

2 Introduction

This viva scenario is far from uncommon. Although the supervisor latersuspected the examiners might have been making a point about the earlysubmission of the thesis being needlessly hasty, research has shown that a‘page-by-page’ dissection of the thesis is still considered good (i.e. ‘scholarly’)practice by many examiners (see Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 71, 184). Thisscenario should also serve as a stern reminder to supervisors about why styleand presentation are so important: for examiners ‘that way inclined’ anyirritation at this level may serve as an excuse for them not to engage with thesubstance of the text (see 4.12).

Scenario 2: the jealous colleague

and have, as a consequence, gone for something of a ‘wild card’: aprofessor in a cognate discipline who nevertheless has a strong per-sonal interest in the topic. From the supervisor’s point of view, notknowing more about the examiner is subsequently deemed a big mis-take. The viva – nearly three hours long – turns out to be a page-by-pageinquest of small points of meaning and/or ambiguity – as well as high-lighting the candidate’s failure to conform to the MLA style sheet.

As it turns out, the internal examiner is also something of a sticklerfor scholarly detail and does not challenge the external’s approach.Indeed, he has produced his own lengthy list of minor amendments sothat by the time the candidate leaves the room she has been thoroughlyrapped over the knuckles for lack of scholarly rigour.

The real tragedy of this examination as far as the candidate is con-cerned, however, is that she has been asked virtually nothing at allabout the ‘big’ (and contentious) points in her text. She has come intothe viva prepared to defend ‘her thesis’ and, instead, has spent threehours being quizzed on scores of minor points.

At the end of the long inquest, Stephanie is congratulated and toldshe has ‘passed’ subject to ‘minor corrections’. The trouble is that shedoes not believe she has passed, and is severely disappointed by the lackof any real intellectual or political engagement with a subject she carespassionately about. The event leaves her doubting her own future as anacademic and she soon afterwards quits to take up a career in themedia.

Tom is a bright, conscientious student who has self-funded himselfthrough his PhD. It is uncertain whether he has the credentials to makea successful career for himself in academia, but his supervisor has neverhad any doubts about his work being of doctoral standard. The PhD iscompleted in five years (part-time) and the supervisor is fortunateenough to find an external whose work is central to the candidate’s

Introduction 3

In many ways, Tom’s experience in this scenario is not that dissimilar toStephanie’s in Scenario 1. In both instances they have been hauled up andhumiliated for relatively minor errors and have missed out on a more sub-stantive, intellectual engagement of their thesis. As far as the examiners areconcerned, however, it is a very different case. Whereas in Scenario 1 it is theexternal, motivated by a ‘nit-picking’ version of scholarship, who dominates,in Scenario 2 it is the internal motivated – one would guess – by his ownprofessional insecurity and a desire to ‘get one over’ on his more successfuljunior colleague (i.e. the supervisor). The real tragedy of this scenario is thatthe candidate is made to pay for unspoken – and possibly even unconscious –rivalry between the internal examiner and the supervisor. He will come out

own. She struggles rather more to find an internal examiner, however,and eventually opts for a senior colleague with a general interest in thesubject. The supervisor has some doubts about the internal appoint-ment since she knows he hasn’t published (or, indeed, supervised)that much himself and is consequently rather insecure professionally.It does not occur to her that this could have any bearing on theexamination, however.

The supervisor first realizes that trouble is afoot when, two weeksbefore the exam, the internal examiner requests the transcripts of thecandidate’s data collection. He does not reveal the reason for this butthe supervisor, not wishing to worry the student, pretends that it isnothing out of the ordinary.

The motive behind the request becomes all too clear in the course ofthe viva, however. Although the external proves to be reasonably happywith the thesis in terms of research, method and argument, theinternal performs a ‘ritual humiliation’ of the candidate by revealing –in the course of the exam – a systematic transcription error. Tom hasfailed to read a key symbol in the source texts correctly and hasrepeated the error all the way through the thesis. The internal exam-iner makes the point that such a basic error is hardly acceptable atdoctoral level and also observes that it is ‘surprising that the supervisordidn’t notice it’. He then produces a three-page list of all the places inthe thesis where the error occurs and declares that it took him twoweeks of ‘precious vacation time’ to do all the checking.

The external attempts to bring the discussion back to the more sub-stantive content/argument of the thesis but to little avail. According toTom, discussion of the transcript transcription error took up over halfthe total time of the viva and left him feeling so ashamed and dispiritedthat he could not concentrate on the subsequent questions. This wasdespite the fact that the examiners had advised him that he had ‘passed’at the start of the viva. Indeed, he remarked afterwards that during thelatter stages of the viva he thought he must have misheard them: ‘Icouldn’t believe I had “passed” after having been so humiliated.’

4 Introduction

of the viva not realizing that his humiliation was really an attempt to humili-ate his supervisor. Moreover, even if the supervisor suspects this was theinternal’s ‘intention’ she can never convey as much to the candidate. He willremain the unwitting, innocent victim of a petty case of professional jealousyfor the rest of his life. (Needless to say, this is a scenario where the activepresence of a chair might have, at least, put a time limit on the candidate’shumiliation: see 5.3.)

Scenario 3: foul play

Nawal is a mature student in creative writing whose doctoral assessmentconsists of an 80,000-word piece of creative writing plus a 20,000-worddissertation. The latter is supposed to offer a reflective overview of thecandidate’s work, the literary context in which it has been produced,and an evaluation of its success.

The internal examiner, Aidan, has known the candidate for manyyears. Nawal has been a rather larger-than-life presence in the depart-ment, not least because, as an Afghan refugee who suffered torture atthe hands of the Taliban, she has been very vocal politically. Althoughwary of taking on the role of ‘internal’ in this particular case, Aidan iseventually persuaded to do so because of his own interest in migrant/diasporic narrative. It is soon to prove a decision he bitterly regrets.

Aidan is informed that the external examiner is a high-profileEgyptian writer from London. This immediately makes him feeluneasy, since this writer (who is also a part-time lecturer in one of theLondon colleges) is something of a 1970s ‘has-been’ known for hisoutspoken political views and general eccentricity. As a relatively youngacademic working within a very different political and culturaltradition, Aidan is not at all sure how they will get on.

Aidan’s concerns multiply a hundredfold when he finally gets to readNawal’s ‘novel’ and dissertation. The submission turns out to be athinly veiled account of her own life and suffering and it simply doesnot ‘work’ as fiction. Indeed, it is so poorly written as to be barelyliterate in places and this is exacerbated, rather than disguised, by itsfragmentary ‘experimental’ form. Aidan consequently feels compelledto write a brutally frank pre-viva report in which he indicates that hedoesn’t think the submission meets the standards of a PhD. He alsoreports his serious misgivings to the Postgraduate Registry.

Between the submission of the report and the viva (one week) thesecretary of the Graduate School gets in touch to inform Aidan that theexternal examiner has come to a very ‘opposite’ conclusion in his pre-viva report. He thinks both the ‘novel’ and the dissertation are ‘braveand successful experimental pieces’ and applauds the candidate in nouncertain terms. The Registry nevertheless encourages Aidan to go

Introduction 5

This unfortunate case rolls together several of the political dimensions tohigher degree examining in the UK that render it such an ‘unlevel’ playingfield (see Park 2003). In the first instance, it illustrates graphically the pres-sure younger, inexperienced examiners (generally ‘internals’) are put underwhen coupled with a dominant opposite number (see 1.8 and 2.1; also Tinklerand Jackson 2004: 103). As in this scenario, it is often extremely hard towithstand the pressure, charm or general persuasiveness of those who havewielded their authority for upwards of 20 years. Indeed, it is all too easy – ashere – for a junior colleague to go into a viva situation absolutely certain thatthe thesis falls into one or other category only to have his or her opinionoverturned before they even meet with the candidate. (The presence of a chair

ahead with the viva with the reassurance that if there is still‘major disagreement’ afterwards a second external examiner can bebrought in.

Unfortunately this ‘promise’ does not help Aidan on the day. Theexternal who can, on occasion, be as charming as he is eccentric,steamrollers his way through the pre-viva ‘agenda setting’ meeting byappealing – at every available opportunity – to Aidan’s ‘human’ sym-pathy for Nawal and all that she has suffered. Although he is happy forAidan to ask his ‘difficult’ methodological questions, he makes it clearthat he thinks it is possible to respond to Nawal’s work far more ‘cre-atively’ and thus implies that Aidan is failing to appreciate the work onits own terms.

The viva consequently turns out to be a very odd affair, with Aidanasking what he considers to be appropriate academic questions and theexternal – by and large – simply echoing the candidate’s own intenselypersonal response. At the end of the viva – when the candidate has leftthe room – the external declares that he thought she did ‘very well’ andAidan is left feeling absolutely powerless and unsure about what to donext. Worse: in the course of the viva it has become clear to him thatboth Nawal and her supervisor are personal friends of the external(something he had not known previously) and have belonged to thesame political groups in London.

While still personally convinced that in no way was this work of PhDstandard, the viva ended with Aidan agreeing that Nawal could ‘pass’providing she reflected upon some of his ‘reservations’ in a reviseddissertation (i.e. the PhD was officially a pass with ‘minor corrections’).

Immediately after the viva, Aidan went to the toilet, returning to findthe candidate, her supervisor and the external all laughing, joking anddrinking champagne in the secretary’s office. Feeling sick to the stom-ach, he made his excuses and left. He knew that he had let ‘pass’ apiece of work that was nowhere near doctoral standard and that he hadfailed to stand up to his fellow examiner even when – as was now virtu-ally confirmed – he had suspected foul play.

6 Introduction

clearly helps a more junior examiner to make their case heard in thesecircumstances, but it is not usual for them to be present at the pre-viva‘agenda-setting meeting’ where positions of dominance and submissionare usually established.) What moves this case from one of ‘poor behaviour’(i.e. bullying) on the part of one examiner into the realms of ‘foul play’,however, is the suspicion that the external had agreed to do the job as apersonal favour to the candidate and her supervisor. As we observe in 5.2there is such a fine line between ‘common practice’ and ‘suspicious practice’in this regard, that it is often only in cases like this one – where a thesis isextremely weak – that malpractice is exposed.

Complicating the issue here, moreover, is the real-life politics surroundingthe case. Knowing more than he probably should about the candidate’spersonal suffering, the internal feels that to resist the external and to arguefor the failure of the PhD might also constitute a failure of his own ‘humanity’.Indeed, the highly emotive and confessional nature of the candidate’s novelis clearly designed to challenge conventional judgement in this regard. As aconsequence, it is not too difficult to see how the internal ended up beingsteamrollered into a decision he was deeply troubled by and later ashamedof. (What action you might take should you ever find yourself in a similarscenario is discussed in 6.2.)

By way of contrast, I turn finally to an account of a viva which is positiveand enjoyable for both the candidate and the examiners.

Scenario 4: the good viva

Chris is a student who began his PhD in his late twenties after a shortperiod working for the local council in order to pay back his MA fees.Although he did not get a first-class undergraduate degree, his workprogressed in leaps and bounds during the MA and he graduatedwith a distinction. During his MA Chris became increasingly involvedwith a new branch of theory now informing his subject (environmentalstudies) and this has become the focus of his PhD. As someone who hasundertaken a fair amount of teaching to supplement his studentship,Chris’s thesis takes four and half years to complete but both he and hissupervisor are happy with the finished product.

Chris is fortunate enough to get one of the top scholars in his field toexamine the PhD, together with an internal examiner who – althoughnot a subject specialist – has supervised upwards of 20 PhDs to comple-tion and is well-published himself. Although the two examiners do notknow each other personally, both are aware of each other’s experienceand reputation.

In their preliminary discussions about the thesis both examinersagree that it is a fine piece of work. This is not to say that it is entirelywithout problems. The external feels strongly that the last section does

Introduction 7

not really fit with the rest of the thesis and is, as yet, insufficientlygrounded in method and experiment. While (as a non-specialist) theinternal is rather less attuned to these methodological issues, she tooobserves that the last section does not sit entirely comfortably in thethesis as a whole. The examiners therefore agree to present this con-cern to Chris in the viva and to see if, together, they can find some wayof resolving it.

The viva itself is both relaxed and vigorous. The two examiners meetup the night before and get on well personally, and the atmosphere inthe examination room is good from the moment the candidate walksin. There is some light-hearted banter and laughter as the chair makesthe introductions, and the examiners are quickly aware that Chris isrobust enough to withstand their criticism of the final section of thethesis when the time comes. The internal indicates that this is wherethey wish to focus their attention right at the start of the viva, but bothexaminers nevertheless spend the first half hour talking very positivelyabout the strengths of the thesis and which sections are immediatelypublishable.

By the time they proceed to the problematic final section of thethesis all the participants are so at their ease and – intellectually – intheir stride that there is no sudden flare-up of anxiety or panic. Theexternal invites Chris to explain how he became involved in the theoryinforming this section of the thesis, and then moves on to its incongru-ity with the rest of the thesis. Chris concedes these problems but con-fesses that he was so excited by his new discoveries that he was keen toinclude them. The external then fills him in on some of his own (asyet unpublished) research in the area and is candid about the method-ological challenges he has himself been facing. Chris is excited to hearabout the external’s research, and very much appreciates theopportunity of discussing, in depth, some of the problems he has him-self encountered. This conversation lasts almost an hour (it is a longviva!) with both men totally absorbed by the implications of this newapproach to their subject.

Eventually the chair intervenes and informs the examiners that it isprobably time for them to move towards their final conclusions, unlessthey would prefer to take a break and continue the discussion later.Neither examiner feels this is necessary, but the external has become soembroiled in the particulars of his argument that he is clearly strug-gling to know where to go next. At this point the internal helpfullyintervenes. She has remained silent for most of the long theoreticaldiscussion but has spotted ways in which Chris could possibly accom-modate the final section within the existing thesis framework. She sug-gests that, rather than undertake the new research and experimentsnecessary to give authority to the final section of the thesis (whichwould constitute at least ‘major corrections’ if not a full ‘referral’),Chris should cut the last two chapters and, instead, deal with the

8 Introduction

Scenario 4 aims to illustrate, above all, that a ‘good viva’ is not necessarilyan ‘easy’ one. As research has shown (see Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 203–11),candidates who have had short or insufficiently probing vivas tend to suffermost from a sense of anticlimax and – on some occasions – ‘lack of closure’.The classic response in these instances is thus the phrase: ‘Is that it?’ Three,four or five years’ research most certainly deserves more than the ‘40-minutechat’ some candidates are granted.

What is, indeed, distinctive about the scenario depicted here is the extentto which both the external examiner and the candidate get ‘stuck in’ to thenitty-gritty of the research. Both are passionate about their subject, and therecent advances within it, and during the course of their discussions it is clearthat both care about ‘it’ much more than they care about themselves or theirqualifications/reputations. Indeed, another feature of this viva – in distinc-tion to those described in Scenarios 1 and 2 – is the complete absence of ‘egoissues’ for any of the key players. Both examiners are so experienced andsuccessful that they do not need to ‘prove’ themselves (either to the candi-date or to each other) and the candidate is himself mature enough to acceptthat criticism of part of his thesis is not a criticism of the whole thesis – or,indeed, of himself personally. Clearly ‘personality type’ is one of the ingredi-ents of higher degree examining that we are least able to control, but thisscenario does argue strongly for at least one of the examiners beingwell established and experienced (see 2.1).

Hopefully these case studies will have provided examiners new to the jobwith an immediate glimpse of some of the key issues involved in higherdegree examination in the UK at the present time. While they clearly run therisk of making even the more experienced among you think twice before‘saying yes’ ever again, the focus on the unofficial – often unconscious – psy-chodynamics of the examination process is one of this book’s key objectives.While the guidelines and regulations produced by the institution at which

material as ‘future research’ in an expanded introduction and conclu-sion. She observes that since the thesis in its present form is over100,000 words long there should be no problem cutting it back to80,000.

Both the external examiner and Chris are delighted by this sugges-tion, and – during the period when Chris temporarily leaves the roomat the end of the viva – the examiners agree that this simple modifica-tion can be effected under the three-month ‘minor corrections’ rule.(In their post-viva reports both examiners confirmed that this was ahighly successful PhD without the final section.)

When Chris returns he, too, is delighted with the verdict and – by wayof an extremely happy conclusion – he and the external make plans tocollaborate on the methodological issues raised by the final section ofthe thesis. Both candidate and examiners leave the examination roomexhausted but extremely satisfied.

Introduction 9

you agree to examine might go some way to advising you on ‘criteriafor assessment’ (see 2.6 and 2.7) and ‘proper conduct’ in the viva itself(see Chapter 5), none will warn you that a complex set of power relations isinherent in each and every examination and that – as a consequence –anything resembling ‘standard practice’ remains little more than a fantasy.

As is made clear at the start of the next chapter, however, the fact thatthere is no standard practice in UK higher degree examination at the presenttime does not mean that there is no common practice: there is. Indeed, one ofthe aims of this book is to illustrate both the similarities and differences inpractice across a range of ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities (Oxford, Durham,Birmingham, Lancaster and Sheffield Hallam are compared and contrastedthroughout). Another feature of the book is its clear ‘step-by-step’ approachto what is involved from the moment you provisionally agree to take on thejob to all the ‘cleaning up’ that follows the viva. For this reason, it is a bookthat is most usefully read chapter by chapter, although I am also aware thatsome of you may prefer to jump straight to whatever stage, or issue, is pre-occupying you at the present time. (The descriptively titled subsectionsshould assist you in this.)

The reason this book has been written is because I, and those who sup-ported me in the writing of it, strongly believe higher degree examining isurgently in need of reform. This is not to say that we demand an absolutelylevel playing field (most of us concede that this may never be possible) – buteven small changes in practice (e.g. the chairing of vivas) have been seen toeffect significant improvements.

It is thus my hope that this volume will encourage present andfuture examiners to press for change at institutional level at the same time asensuring that their personal experience of higher degree examining is asstraightforward, enjoyable and rewarding as possible.

10 Introduction

1Higher degree examining in the UK today

This chapter provides an overview of higher degree examining in the UKtoday and indicates, in particular, the extent to which a central core of‘standard’ or ‘assumed’ practice is subject to significant local variation. Thisindeterminacy also relates, of course, to the ambiguities surrounding higherdegrees more generally: the questions of ‘What is a PhD?’ or ‘What is anM.Phil?’ – problems of definition and standard that will be dealt with in thenext chapter. At the same time that these questions remain unanswered, thepressure is on – at the level of funding council/institutional ‘quality assur-ance’ – for all those involved in higher degree teaching and assessment tourgently sharpen up their act. With graduate students now increasinglyaware of how much their higher degrees are costing them (in every sense)those institutions (and individuals) who fail to at least aspire to fairness andtransparency are living very dangerously indeed.

1.1 Examining higher degrees

Higher degree examining in the UK at the present time is not only extremelyvariable, but manifestly in transition. Although postgraduate teaching andassessment may have been the last bastion of the university system to suc-cumb to the scrutiny of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the millen-nium has seen the Higher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE), the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) andthe UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) all send out the messagethat change is at hand. As with undergraduate education, competition forfunding is now so fierce, pressure to recruit so intense, and the entitlementsof students so much more transparent, that the whole higher degree processhas necessarily been called to account. For the moment, though, ‘bench-marks’ and ‘standards’ are still singularly lacking in the UK for the goodreason that higher degree provision has evolved in a largely ad hoc manner –institution by institution and discipline by discipline. Even more problematic

is the fact that higher degrees themselves – namely the M.Phil and the PhD –have yet to be satisfactorily defined in terms of either specification or stand-ard. As Tinkler and Jackson summarize in The Doctoral Examination Process(2004: 2):

Unfortunately, the PhD examination, particularly the viva, is feared andoften poorly understood by many students, and is often a source ofconcern and confusion for many supervisors and examiners. These feel-ings and confusions are prompted by three main factors. First, doctoralexamination procedures are highly variable – they vary between institu-tions and between examiners. Second, there are no clearly articulatedcommon criteria or standards for the award of a PhD. Third, the doc-toral viva is usually a relatively private affair that takes place ‘behindclosed doors’.

Each of the issues Tinkler and Jackson identify will be dealt with, from theexaminer’s point of view, in the course of this book. The main point here issimply to note the sheer range of variables that we are dealing with. Indeed, itis fair to say that higher degrees in the UK at the present time – and inparticular the PhD – must be regarded as hugely problematic as ‘qualifica-tions’. Because of this, it is not surprising to learn that very few universitylecturers are now appointed on the strength of their PhD alone: publicationis the more meaningful ‘acid test’ of intellectual originality and sophistica-tion. This serves to emphasize the work that now needs to be done in defin-ing the PhD against this other, tougher benchmark – something that we shallreturn to in the next chapter (see 2.6).

The picture of UK higher degrees that will emerge in the course of thisvolume, then, is of qualifications that combine a significant family resem-blance with often surprising idiosyncrasies. Indeed, it is probably true to saythat no one institution is exactly the same as the next in either its definitionof its higher degrees, its system of classification or its assessment and exam-ination processes. At the same time, the generic similarities are still wide-spread enough to render a book like this one meaningful and (as we shallsee) cause some examiners to mistakenly assume that the experience of exam-ining a higher degree in one institution may simply be transferred to another.

Before exploring what continuities do and do not exist in higher degreeexamining in the UK, however, it is useful to note some of the alternativepractices deployed elsewhere in the world; not least because the viva voce(oral examination) which to some extent defines our PhD originates – andsurvives – in a much more rigorous form in continental Europe.

As is revealed in Renate Simpson’s fascinating How the PhD Came to Britain(1983), academic research in general – and the PhD in particular – owemuch to the intellectual revolution that swept Germany in the nineteenthcentury. During this period, a new ‘philosophy’ faculty was added to the‘professional’ faculties of law, medicine and theology, and the old ‘Masters’degree was incorporated into a new ‘doctorate of philosophy’ (Simpson1983: 15). This new faculty was the home for teaching and research in the

12 How to Examine a Thesis

natural and experimental sciences, and by the end of the century largenumbers of scholars from around the world were migrating to Germany inorder to complete their studies at the highest level. This included a goodmany British chemists, and it was largely owing to the efforts of one of them,Henry Roscoe (who obtained his own PhD at Heidelberg), that serious scien-tific research finally came to Britain. Roscoe and another chemist, W.H.Perkin, were strong advocates of the German PhD and argued that its intro-duction in Britain might do much to improve standards. It is especially inter-esting to note that in his speech of 1884 Perkin invokes the concept of‘originality’ to define the German PhD: ‘The degree of Doctor of Philosophyhas undoubtedly done a good deal to further Chemistry in Germany, neces-sitating, as it does, the prosecution of original work’ (Simpson 1983: 420,emphasis added). As we shall see in Chapter 3, ‘originality’ remains thebenchmark of all PhDs (however variously defined).

By the beginning of the twentieth century, London, Manchester, Oxfordand Cambridge had all introduced their own versions of the doctorate whichgradually became the non-taught/research-based qualification that we arefamiliar with today. The complexity with which the qualification has evolved,and evolved differently, across the different institutions explains why we areleft dealing with such a hotch-potch of definitions and regulations.

The use of a viva examination as the means of assessing a doctorate alsohas its origins in the German PhD. In this system, the thesis was presentedtwo or three years after the candidate’s original matriculation ‘and all pro-fessors in the faculty could, if they wished, question the candidate at an oralexamination’ (Simpson 1983: 15). From the start, then, the European doc-torate was defined not only by its intellectual rigour but by the fact that it wassubject to public scrutiny. This was research that had to compete in the intel-lectual market-place on its own terms; not merely higher level study that hadreached the ‘required standard’ for a particular qualification.

Even today, the European doctoral process puts the blood and sweat trad-itionally associated with ours to shame. In France, for example, the PhD hasmaintained its reputation for truly cutting-edge intellectual engagement ofthe highest order (i.e. in no way is it an apprenticeship for the ‘real thing’),and this is matched by an examination process which aims to make thecandidate as accountable for his or her work as if the thesis were being ‘tried’in a court of law. Indeed, many would say that the French viva resembles a‘trial’ in every sense: instead of the candidate having his or her work ‘tested’by two (or at most three) examiners in the presence of (at most) a chair and/or supervisor, she or he is presented with a ‘jury’ of experts (four to sixpeople) and an ‘audience’ (which may, literally, comprise the general publicas well as fellow academics) which might run into hundreds (Tinkler andJackson 2004: 72). Needless to say, the ‘defence’ of the thesis becomes a verydifferent affair in such a public arena and, I would suggest, points to some ofthe problems with the watered-down UK version. While few British studentswould willingly volunteer for such a public inquisition of their work, there isa very real ‘safety in numbers’ as far as the assessment of academic work at

Higher degree examining in the UK today 13

this level is concerned. With this number of examiners, and with aninformed audience also present, there is very little chance of a PhD beingfailed on account of one person’s power, spite or jealousy, as sometimeshappens in British institutions.

Many other European countries operate similar versions of a publicdefence. In Sweden, for example, it is common for the candidate to bequestioned by an invited ‘opponent’ (in formal dress!) in front of threeexaminers and an invited audience. Indeed, Stuart Powell’s account of beingsuch an opponent (Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 28–9) certainly demonstratesthe extent to which European countries regard the viva as, above all, a ‘rite ofpassage’ in which the best candidates are given the opportunity to shine. Asimilar system operates in Finland and, for the interest and amusement ofBritish readers, I include the ‘Disputation’ guidelines for the University ofTurku; these should certainly prevent any of us complaining about thelength of the UK viva in the future!

University of Turku: guidelines for the doctoral candidateProcedure at the disputation

1 When the participants in the Disputation enter the room the Dispu-tant who will be defending the dissertation enters first followed bythe Custos (chairperson), and the Opponent enters last.

2 The correct form of attire for the Disputant, Custos and Opponentis for ladies a black dress with long sleeves, and for gentlemen fullevening dress with a black waistcoat (or, where appropriate, uni-forms without decorations). Alternatively, if the Disputant, Custosand Opponent so agree, formal suits may be worn. Where appropri-ate, participants may wear a doctor’s gown (with or without therelevant headdress). Participants holding Nordic doctorates are tocarry their doctor’s hat in their hand while entering and while leav-ing the room; during the Disputation the hat is placed upon thetable with the lyre facing towards the audience.

3 When all are seated, the Custos opens the proceedings in the follow-ing manner: ‘As Custos appointed by the Faculty of . . . I declare thebeginning of this doctoral Disputation.’

4 The Disputant, standing, then delivers the lectio praecursoria orintroductory lecture, which may not exceed 20 minutes in duration.The lectio begins with the greeting: ‘Learned Custos, my esteemedOpponent, Ladies and Gentlemen . . .’

5 The correction of misprints is not part of the proceedings at theDisputation. The Disputant may submit to the Opponent a writtenlist of errors which he or she himself [sic] has found, and this list maybe appended to the Opponent’s Statement submitted to the Faculty.

6 On concluding the lectio praecursoria the Disputant will address theOpponent with the following words: ‘Professor (or Doctor, etc.) Irespectfully beg you, as the Opponent duly appointed by the Faculty


of . . . for my Disputation, to present your criticisms of my doctoraldissertation.’

7 The Opponent then stands and delivers a short statement concern-ing the scientific status and significance of the topic of the disserta-tion, together with other similar statements of a general nature. Afterthis statement, both Opponent and Disputant resume their seats.

8 In the examination of the dissertation, the Opponent should beginby dealing with methodological and general questions, and thenproceed to a detailed scrutiny of the text.

9 The Opponent many not spend more than four hours on the exam-ination of the dissertation, so that time enough remains for otherspeakers to present questions or criticisms. If the examination takesa long time, the Custos may announce an interval. The totalDisputation may not last longer than six hours.

10 At the conclusion of the Opponent’s examination of the disserta-tion, the Opponent and Disputant stand, and the Opponentdelivers a final statement.

11 The Disputant, still standing, then thanks the Opponent.12 The Disputant next turns to the audience, and invites their contri-

bution as follows: ‘I now respectfully invite any members of theaudience who wish to offer criticisms of my dissertation to requestthe Custos for permission to speak.’

13 The Custos may then grant permission for members of the audienceto speak, and is responsible for ensuring that the Disputant is able toreply immediately to each criticism offered, and that the discussiondoes not stray from the matter in hand.

14 Finally the Custos stands and terminates the proceedings as follows:‘This Disputation is now concluded.’

Source: University of Turku, Finland (2002)

In the UK, only two universities – Oxford and Manchester – offer thepossibility of anyone other than appointed officials being present at a viva. AtOxford, the doctoral viva is open to any member of the university providinghe or she is in academic dress (with the viva being held in a public examin-ation hall – or equivalent – for that reason), while at Manchester the viva isopen to academic supervisors, academic staff and other candidates studyingfor the degree of PhD (Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 82).

North America and Australia also offer interesting variants on the doctoralexamination process. In the USA and Canada, for example, it is normal forthe viva to consist of a panel of examiners and for family and friends toattend if they so desire. Here the panel is likely to consist of: the chair; thesupervisor(s); the internal examiner (from the candidate’s department);the ‘internal external’ (from a cognate department within the faculty); theexternal (a specialist from another institution); and the candidate’s headof department or representative (‘the chair-delegate’). A typical order ofproceedings is as follows.


The North American doctoral defence

1 The panel and the candidate enter the room and are formallyintroduced; the chair runs through the procedure for the viva (eachmember of the panel has c. 20 minutes to ask a question and offercomment); the chair also reminds the panel of the categories of‘recommendation’ available.

2 The candidate leaves the room.3 The chair reads out the reports of the panel members (note: this is

the first time they will have heard each other’s reports).4 The candidate returns and may offer a short summary of the thesis.5 The chair asks the first question (usually an ‘ice-breaker’ along the

lines of ‘How did you get interested in this topic?’).6 Each member of the panel asks a question of the candidate, usually

starting with the external (who may also be allowed a little moretime).

7 If desired, there then follows a second round of questioning.8 The candidate leaves the room and the chair reminds the panel of

the categories of recommendation available.9 The panel deliberate over their recommendation (normally: pass;

pass with minor corrections; pass with major corrections; fail).10 The candidate is invited back and the recommendation conferred.

This renders the North American process much closer to continentalEurope than the UK. In Australia, on the other hand, a system of examin-ation has evolved (largely for geographical reasons) which does not requirethe examiners to question the candidate in person. Instead, the examiners(often up to three externals) are called upon to submit detailed reports andrecommendations that are then scrutinized by the university’s ‘PhD Com-mittee’; it is this committee that then makes the final decision. If, however,a thesis fails or is referred, a viva becomes a mandatory element in there-examination.1

What all these ‘alternative’ examination processes of course emphasize isjust how closed and inscrutable the UK model is. The viva is still thought of asa ‘defence’ – indeed, as we shall see, many examiners regard the candidate’sability to robustly defend their work as a key criterion for success – butthe ‘public’ dimension is entirely lacking. Whereas the European andNorth American vivas might resemble courtroom trials, the UK version isinclined to resemble a police interrogation (normally without the security oftape-recording or videotape) (see Murray 2002b; Park 2003).

1.2 Categories of degree that are examined

This book focuses on the examination of the two higher degrees that regu-larly entail individual assessment and a viva: the M.Phil and the PhD. As withundergraduate degrees, most institutions reserve the right to hold vivas for


Masters degrees (both ‘taught’ and ‘by research’) should this be required,but the clause is rarely invoked.

The M.Phil (as a two-year research-based qualification) is a degree that hasbecome increasingly unfashionable in recent years, at least in this particularform. This is largely because all those pursuing academic careers are nowexpected to have PhDs, whereas once upon a time an M.Phil – or, indeed, theOxford M.Litt – would suffice perfectly. Indeed, many departments in theUK still have staff who entered the profession in the 1970s and 1980s with anM.Phil-equivalent qualification. The fact that a scholar had elected to under-take a shorter piece of independent research was not understood to be areflection on the quality of either the work or its author: in the humanities itwas felt that an M.Phil was sometimes a more suitable qualification than a PhD.

More recently, however, the M.Phil has very much come to be definedagainst the standard of the PhD. Not only is it shorter – a maximum of 60,000words as opposed to 100,000 (or less: see 1.5) – but neither does it generallyrequire the gold standard of ‘absolute’ originality or publishability associatedwith the PhD (see 2.6 and 2.7).

Rather sadly therefore, the research version of the M.Phil is today oftenassociated with ‘failed’ PhDs: either those that failed to get upgraded, orthose that failed to ‘pass’ the final assessment. This is not to say that someexcellent M.Phils do not continue to be produced by candidates whoaccepted that a shorter, more time-efficient research programme was rightfor them and their topic, but they are increasingly in the minority.

M.Phils which combine independent research with assessed courseworkare, however, flourishing – especially in those disciplines (e.g. management,educational research, nursing) where a professional qualification ratherthan a passport to an academic career per se is in order. Many of theseschemes run for two years and require a viva for the research element of theproject (see 2.6). Other schemes run for just one year and are, in manyrespects, hard to distinguish from MAs by research in as much as theynormally incorporate taught or research training modules with a disserta-tion of 20–40,000 words. Vivas are less common for the one-year M.Phils,but are normally available in the regulations should they be deemednecessary.

It is the three-year PhD that has become by far the most popular higherdegree in the UK at the present time, with recent data indicating that therewere over 100,000 students registered on doctoral programmes in 2002(Morley et al. 2002). Included in these figures is a huge increase in theregistrations of overseas students for whom a British PhD is a passport to anelite and well-paid job in their own country (see 1.7).

Also increasing is the number of ‘new route’ and/or ‘professional’ doc-torates now being offered in the UK (Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 6). As withsome of the M.Phil schemes discussed above, most of these combine course-work assessment (sometimes in the form of publications) with a reduced-length dissertation. Once again, whether or not there is a viva for thesehigher degrees tends to vary between institutions. The following guidelines


from the ‘new route’ PhDs at Lancaster University offer one example of whatmight be expected.

Lancaster University: research degrees undertaken by the new route

• A candidate shall register at the outset for M.Phil/PhD with aminimum full-time registration period of forty-eight months and amaximum of sixty months.

• A candidate shall undertake taught courses specified by the depart-ment of registration. Such courses shall normally be completedwithin twenty-four months of first registration and lead to the degreeof M.Res.

• To be eligible for transfer of registration from M.Phil/PhD . . . thecandidate shall (i) submit for assessment written work of which aproportion specified by the department shall be of an appropriatestandard, and (ii) satisfy a departmental examination board that s/heis academically capable of successfully completing a thesis. The boardmay recommend one of the following: (a) that the candidate is eli-gible for his/her registration to be transferred to PhD, subject totransmission of a satisfactory proposal for the thesis; or (b) that thecandidate be invited to re-submit elements of written work to satisfythe requirement of (i) above . . .; or (c) that the candidate be invitedto complete the requirements for examination for the award ofM.Phil.

• A candidate who has satisfied [the necessary requirements] shall berequired to submit a thesis of normally not more than 70,000 words.The thesis shall be examined according to the normal regulations(i.e., it will entail a viva). To be eligible for the degree of PhD thethesis shall make an original contribution to knowledge and containmaterial of a standard appropriate to scholarly publication.

Source: Lancaster University (2003/4)

It will be seen that, in this case, the ‘new route’ PhD is distinguished not onlyby the inclusion of coursework in the assessment, but the fact that (as withNorth American PhDs) successful completion of the coursework is requiredbefore the candidate can progress to the thesis. It is also interesting toobserve that, in this instance, the thesis itself (maximum 70,000 words) is notsubstantially shorter than the ‘standard’ PhD (80–100,000 words) and isexamined by the same means (i.e. including a viva).

A further PhD variant is the ‘practice-based PhD’: a category that espe-cially appertains to subjects like art, music, theatre studies and creative writ-ing. At most universities, special guidelines are offered to candidates andexaminers working with submissions that are in an ‘alternative format’,including a strong recommendation for the methodological framework(including the criteria on which the work is to be assessed) to be as clear aspossible. Examining a practice-based/alternative format PhD can beextremely interesting and rewarding, but the examiners should expect very


clear instructions on exactly what they are assessing and how to assess it. AsTinkler and Jackson note in their section on practice-based PhDs (2004:116–17), it remains as vital for these degrees as their mainstream counterpartsthat the ‘research question’ is answered (see also Durling 2002).

In its special regulations for PhDs in theatre studies (2003/4) LancasterUniversity requires that the ‘practical component’ ‘must demonstrate ori-ginal research and analytical skill in and through a high level of technicalskill in the manipulation of the materials of production’. The regulationsadd that ‘For the degree of PhD, the practical component should normallybe of the appropriate professional standard’. Further requirements includethat ‘a permanent record of the creative aspect of the overall submission(e.g. video) must be deposited with the written thesis in the Universitylibrary’ and that the written thesis (normally 50,000 words for a PhD and30,000 words for an M.Phil) ‘be of a quality commensurate with the usualstandards set for PhD or M.Phil’ (pp. 35–7). Moreover, while the board ofexaminers may also be expected to attend a live performance of a piece ofwork, the examination process will be completed by the viva in the normalway. It would thus seem that, for examiners as well as students, practice-basedPhDs are liable to involve more work/preparation than those examined bythe standard route.

1.3 QAA: new legislation and initiatives

In January 2003 the HEFCE, in conjunction with the Department forEmployment and Learning, the Scottish Higher Education Council, andEducation and Learning Wales produced a consultation document entitledImproving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes. This substan-tive document, which deals with every stage of the higher degree process,and exposes glaring gaps in the provision presently offered by most institu-tions (to a greater or lesser degree) in the UK, includes some strong adviceon how the examination process may be improved, as noted below:

Improving Standards in Postgradute Research Degree Programmes:HEFCE consultation document (2003)

(A) Academic Standards: 5c: Final Examination to be by an independentpanel of at least two examiners who are research active in the relevantfields, at least one of whom is the external examiner. All examiners tobe independent of the project and to have had no prior role in itsdevelopment, implementation or assessment. Operation of the panelmanaged by an independent chair.

5D At least one of the examiners to be from a minimum [3a] rated depart-ment. Each examiner to provide an independent report on the thesisprior to the viva

(B) Standards for Supervisors: Supervisory team to support the develop-ment of the thesis and advise on preparation for the viva, including offering a


practice session. Supervisor and team should be available to the panel if required.Supervisory team to have access to examiners’ reports following the viva.

(C) Standards for Student/Institution Relations For the final defence, thestudent should: be able to comment on the choice of examiners; have the right torequest or refuse the presence of the main supervisor as a non-contributing obser-ver (unless asked to contribute by the chair). Examiners reports to be madeavailable to the student after the viva. If requested to re-submit, studentsshould be given a written statement of the work to be done to get theirdegree and an agreed timescale.

(D) Administrative Process Standards Institutional procedures andtimings to be made available to the student. Procedures and approvalprocess for the selection of internal and external examiners to usetransparent criteria. Training for examiners to be available as part of theinstitution’s staff development. Institutional assessment criteria for theexamination to be provided to examiners in writing, with an offerof training. External examiners requested to provide comments on the broaderissues of research training and environment to an appropriate institution-widebody.

Source: HEFCE (2003: 5.5c, p. 82, emphasis added)

Although these recommendations regarding examining represent one ofthe shorter sections in the document as a whole (i.e. the most radicalrecommendations are directed at improved research training and account-ability as far as the student’s learning experience is concerned), some sig-nificant changes to current practice are touched upon (see text in italics).These may be summarized thus:

• Examiners as a ‘panel’: while the recommendations stop short of advisingthat the UK PhD viva be brought in line with practice in Europe and theUSA by substantially increasing the number of examiners, simply refer-ring to the examiners and the chair collectively as a panel could be seen toregister a perceptual shift in their status and responsibility. A collective/consensual decision of a ‘team’ representing the wider academic com-munity rather than the approval of the ‘expert’ individual would seem tobe implied.

• ‘At least one of the examiners should be from a minimum [3a] rateddepartment’: not surprisingly, this recommendation caused most concernamong disciplines, units and institutions that have scored lower in recentresearch assessment exercises (RAEs). Inasmuch as it should not provetoo difficult to enlist an external examiner from a 3a+ ranked institution,the recommendation is, however, ultimately less serious for lower rankingunits than that which suggests that least one supervisor should be from a3a-ranked department. (There is, of course, the further implication thathigh-profile academics who happen to work in lower-ranking institutionsmay, in the future, be called upon less.)

• ‘Supervisory team . . . to advise on preparation for the viva’: as we havealready noted elsewhere, this is by no means standard practice at the


present time. While some supervisors/departments operate the ‘goodpractice’ of giving advice or holding ‘mock vivas’, many do not (or do soonly for what are potentially ‘problem cases’).

• ‘Supervisory team . . . available to the panel if required’: while someinstitutions have such a clause in their guidelines, others do not.

• ‘Student should be able to comment on the choice of examiners’: this isby no means standard practice at the present time. It is also a controversialrecommendation that will undoubtedly be resisted by some departmentsand individuals.

• ‘Student should . . . have the right to request or refuse the presence of themain supervisor’: another controverial recommendation. At present someinstitutions in the UK have the supervisor(s) present as a matter of policy;others forbid it; others (as recommended here) consult with the student.

• ‘Training for examiners to be available as part of the institution’s staffdevelopment’: at the present time, I am aware of no institutions in the UKthat offer this sort of training as a matter of course (see 1.4 and 2.2). Itshould also be noted that the document is ambiguous about under whoseauspices this staff development should take place – i.e. should institutionstrain their own staff to be higher degree examiners, or is it a responsibilityof the institutions doing the hiring (as is implied in the further clause:‘[letter of appointment] with an offer of training’)? The latter has alreadybecome standard practice for the external examiners of undergraduatedegree schemes or taught Masters programmes, especially in post-1992universities.

Another important policymaking document, which the HEFCE consult-ation document itself drew upon, is the British Psychological Society’s(BPS) Guidelines for Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and Related Disciplinesfirst published in conjunction with the Universities and Colleges StaffDevelopment Agency (UCoSDA) in 1995 and revised in 2000. This is a veryhands-on, thought-through account of higher degree examination and thethings that could be done to improve it. Indeed, many of the safeguardsrecommended by its authors have still to be taken up elsewhere and aresignificantly at odds with current practice throughout the UK. I will cite thealternative policy recommended by the BPS at many points in the book, buthere is a checklist of some of their more radical propositions (emphasisadded):

• ‘The examination board should be considered as a team, the members ofwhich should possess skills and backgrounds which complement oneanother’ (p. 7).

• ‘An examiner undertaking the role for the first time (whether as externalor internal examiner) is strongly recommended to undertake appropriatepreparation for this role’ (e.g. participating in ‘mock’ vivas; sitting in on areal oral examination) (p. 10).

• ‘The department should appoint a single individual to oversee theexamination arrangements. This may be the supervisor, a departmental


postgraduate tutor, or the independent internal chair of the examinationboard. It should not normally be the internal examiner’ (p. 11).

• ‘Where the written submission is marred by typographic or other presen-tational problems to the extent that the examiner’s ability to read andunderstand is seriously impaired, the examiner has the right to return thesubmission and ask for these errors to be corrected before reading it indetail’ (p. 12).

• ‘Where the examiners are of the unanimous opinion that the thesis is sounsatisfactory that no useful purpose would be served by conducting anoral examination, they may recommend that an oral examination bedispensed with and further work be undertaken . . . The examinersmay not recommend that a candidate be failed outright unless an oralexamination has been held’ (p. 14).

• ‘An oral examination should normally last for no less than one hour andno more than two hours’ (p. 16).

Of these recommendations, those most significantly at variance with cur-rent practice are: (1) the advice that the internal examiner should not be theperson who makes all the arrangements for the viva; and (2) the suggestionthat a viva not take place if the work is deemed seriously inadequate by theexaminers. While some institutions have provision for the latter course, it isoften not made explicit in their guidelines so that examiners are inclined toforge ahead with an examination that is doomed to failure. It should benoted, however, that no thesis can be failed without a viva; this caveat simplyallows a weak piece of work to be improved and resubmitted before the vivatakes place.

Other important policy documents include the CVCP Handbook for Exam-iners in Higher Education (UK Universities Staff Development Agency 1993)and Powell and McCauley’s ‘Research degree examining – commonprinciples and divergent practice’, published in a special edition of QualityAssurance in Education in 2002. More recently, Chris Park has published aframework for best practice in the doctoral viva which is currently beingpiloted at Lancaster University (see Park 2003) and which has received theunofficial endorsement of the National Postgraduate Committee. The articlewhich accompanies the publication of this framework is especially illuminat-ing in what it reveals about academics’ resistance to change. The recom-mendation, for example, that vivas be either chaired or tape-recordedprompted an extremely hostile response with ‘unflattering analogies . . . withpolice-station interviews’ (Park 2003: 33) and the imputation that col-leagues’ professionalism was being called into question. The issue here isclearly that, until they have examined at least 20 or 30 PhDs, the averagelecturer can have little sense of all that might, and does, go wrong. It is onlythose of us who have worked as postgraduate directors or in graduateadministration that have had to deal with the fallout from the problem cases.‘Problem vivas’ may well be a statistical minority, but when they do occur theconsequences can be very serious indeed.


As far as substantive research into the subject of higher degree examiningis concerned, see Hartley and Fox (2002); Hartley and Jory (2000); Morley etal. (2002); Mullins and Kiley (2002); Murray (2003b); Jackson and Tinkler(2000); Tinkler and Jackson (2000, 2004); and Trafford and Leshem (2002a,2002b). Significantly, until very recently most of this research into higherdegree examination has focused on the student’s experience of the vivarather than that of the examiner(s).

1.4 Induction and training of examiners

At the time of going to press, the training and/or induction of examiners ofPhDs in the UK is virtually non-existent. While many institutions (especiallyamong the new universities) offer annual training days for the (external)examiners on taught Masters programmes, I am not aware of any that pro-vide something similar for the examiners of M.Phils/PhDs. Given the sup-posed ‘expert’ status of the external examiner, this is hardly surprising (eventhough it is, of course, easy to confuse subject expertise with examinationexperience).

The fact that the HEFCE briefing paper (see 1.3) implies that such train-ing should take place as part of lecturer staff development at one’s ownuniversity (rather than the examining institution) also suggests little changeis likely in the near future. Given how few academics receive even basicsupervisor training, it is unlikely that many will receive this additionalinstruction and guidance.

It is precisely for this reason that this book has been written, thoughreaders might also like to consider some of the suggestions of the BPS (see1.3) as to how ‘new’ examiners may effectively train themselves. Theseinclude:

• discussing this role with a more experienced colleague before embarkingon the examination process;

• participating in mock vivas which are organized for postgraduatestudents;

• sitting in on a real oral exam as observer;• reading relevant publications, e.g. Handbook for External Examiners

(Universities’ and Colleges’ Staff Development Agency 1993; BPS2000: 10).

In an ideal world, it clearly does make sense for first-time examiners to doall of these things as well as to take every opportunity to sit on postgraduate‘annual review’ panels. While nothing quite compares to experience when itcomes to higher degree examining, finding out as much as you can about thereal-life stories of others is clearly the next best thing. Unfortunately very fewnew examiners have any idea that such preparation is necessary (they havebeen chosen for their ‘expertise’ and knowledge after all) and, in terms ofviva practice, are most likely to simply reproduce ‘what they had done to


them’. It is also worth remembering that, in less popular research areas, alecturer may not be called upon to examine a PhD until quite late in his orher career (i.e. there are plenty of academics who have been in post upwardsof 20 years and only examined a couple of PhDs and for whom ‘training’ – oreven reading a book like this one – would inevitably be deemed insulting).

The issue of induction and training will be dealt with in more detail inSection 2 of the next chapter.

1.5 Variable practice in examining

Since this whole book is, in effect, about variable practice in higher degreeexamining in the UK, it is not appropriate to get immersed in detailed dis-cussions here. Instead, there follows a summary list of the key groups ofvariables that all prospective examiners should be on the lookout for:

• How different institutions define their M.Phils and PhDs (as noted in 1.1,there are some significant variations alongside the similiarities).

• The processes and practices different institutions employ in the assess-ment of their degrees.

• The categories of award/‘recommendations’ available to examiners atdifferent institutions.

• The relationship between the written work and the viva vis-à-vis the totalassessment (different institutions place their emphasis differently).

• The role of the internal/external examiner(s). (As will be seen in thecourse of this book, different institutions allocate responsibility verydifferently.)

• Who will take care of the examination arrangements (both with respect tothe viva and in the run-up)?

• The behaviour/expectations/standards of your fellow examiners.• Who will be present at the viva (e.g. chair, supervisor, others)?• Where will the viva take place?• Options permitted to examiners presented with a very weak thesis.• Procedures for referral/resubmission (these vary significantly from insti-

tution to institution).• Procedures for cases where there is a disagreement between examiners.

Needless to say, the importance of checking out ‘local variations’ on allthese points cannot be emphasized enough. No two higher degree examin-ations will ever be the same!

1.6 Disciplinary differences

The disciplinary differences between PhDs and how they are assessed are, ofcourse, considerable. Indeed, some would argue that the variables are sogreat that it is folly to attempt generic advice in a book such as this.


In response, it can be argued that British institutions are wholly generic intheir guidelines. Apart from having a few special sections on ‘alternativeroute’ and/or ‘practice-based’ PhDs, all the key benchmarks (including whatdefines an M.Phil or a PhD) cut across disciplines. While the measurement of‘originality’ may well be rather different in humanities and the sciences, thatall-important criterion for doctoral-level research remains the same. Thissaid, the way that research is conducted in the ‘hard sciences’ and thehumanities does bring about very different practices when it comes toassessment. The fact that most science doctorates are undertaken as part of ateam project often means that the candidate will have worked with a numberof different supervisors/advisers and also – most importantly – that his or herwork will have been subjected to stringent assessment (often in the form of apanel review) along the way. In other words, many PhD candidates workingin science subjects have good reason to feel reasonably confident about theoutcome of their viva if their work has progressed satisfactorily to that point.This is very different to the ‘worst case’ arts and humanities scenario wherethe graduate ‘lone scholar’ may not have presented his or her research toanyone except the supervisor before the day of the viva. Many science subjectsexpect their postgraduates to become active and visible members of theirresearch community well before they complete. By the time they go for theirviva, they will have presented their work (often as part of their team) at anumber of conferences and, quite possibly, have had significant amounts ofit published (again, as part of their team). It is for these sorts of reasons thatacademics in the sciences are often the least persuaded of the need to reformthe higher degree examination process. Worries about the narrowness/subjectivity of the examiners – i.e. the fundamental concern that they mightcome to an ‘unfair’ conclusion – is mitigated by the fact that the work hasalready been tested and approved in the public domain. There are those whowould also argue, of course, that there is less room for ‘subjective judgement’in the sciences than in the humanities or social sciences, but this will be amoot point with the many scientists who have their own ‘viva stories’ to tell.

Some of the more significant differences I have observed between scienceand humanities/social science subjects are as follows:

• Science PhD vivas tend to be longer that humanities/social science vivas(Tinkler and Jackson 2004 suggest two to three hours instead of one ortwo hours).

• Science students are less involved in the appointment of their examinersthan those in the humanities and social sciences (see Tinkler and Jackson2004 whose survey showed a 45/77 per cent contrast).

• Some science PhDs (e.g. mathematics and physics) are markedly shorterthan those in the humanities/social sciences. Tinkler and Jackson (2004)cite some as being no more than 100 pages long. The degree guidelines atSheffield Hallam University state that the maximum word limit for a PhDin science, engineering, art and design should be no more than 40,000words and the M.Phil no more than 20,000 words.


• An intricate, page-by-page approach to the viva might be more necessary/appropriate in a science subject given the need to work through formulaeetc. When this approach is taken, without good reason, in a humanitiessubject it can be seen as nit-picking and prove disappointing for thecandidate.

A few science subjects provide discipline guidelines on examining (e.g.Royal Society of Chemists 1995). Readers are thus advised to consult theirdisciplinary ‘subject centre’ to see if any such guidelines are available.

1.7 Examining overseas students

Very little has been written on the circumstances surrounding the examin-ation of overseas students in the policymaking documents dealt with in 1.3.Given the fact that all students are expected to be dealt with fairly and ‘thesame’ in their assessment, this is perhaps not surprising. To admit that issuesdo arise when supervising and then assessing overseas students is to open ahuge – and potentially litigious – can of worms.

The most common problem associated with the examination of overseasstudents is one of language – both written and spoken. Presented with athesis by an overseas student that is very poorly expressed, the examiner(s)should consider sending it back for revision before the viva. The supervisor(s)will then have to consider how far they are prepared to help the candidateproduce a ‘clean’ copy of their typescript, but at least the candidate will havebeen given a chance to present their work in such a form that its substantive‘content’ can be fairly assessed.

When the problem is one of the oral communication skills of the candi-date in the viva, the examiners are necessarily obliged to be as sensitive andaccommodating as possible – within reason. The candidate may themselveshave been instructed to mention their lack of fluency at the start of the viva;possibly in the form of a request for certain questions to be repeated ifnecessary. While such tolerance is only proper and humane, examiners may– on some occasions – feel concerned that the oral performance is under-mining their ability to test the authenticity of the thesis (see 5.9). There is noeasy advice on how to proceed here other than to take your time and, pos-sibly, to return to the questioning after a break. The hard fact is that manyUK supervisors have, effectively, written their students’ work for them ‘at thelevel of the sentence’ (and by no means all of them overseas candidates!).This constitutes one of the notoriously grey and murky areas of the ethics ofPhD examining and different examiners will respond differently. As alreadyobserved, there is certainly a dearth of official guidelines on how to proceed.

Apart from language-based problems, it is also important to recognize thatoverseas students will have come to their research with a different set ofintellectual approaches and practices that may become visible again at themoment of assessment. Students raised in the old educational systems of


Central and Eastern Europe, for example, often come to the viva withexpectations of a far lengthier and more rigorous defence because so muchof their past education was assessed orally. Japanese and Taiwanese students,by contrast, may well present as shy and diffident because of their differentsocial/communication codes, and examiners may have to probe gently, butpersistently, to get the necessary information out.

Any generalizations about specific ethnic and national groups are, how-ever, iniquitous (and almost certainly the reason the policy documents havechosen to body-swerve the issue). The bottom line of advice here can only bethat examiners review potential problems and sensitivities concerning over-seas students well before the viva; also, that they check whether the examin-ing institution has any guidelines should problems arise. Accusations ofracism (often couched in terms of ‘cultural insensitivity’) are not uncommonin higher degree appeals.

1.8 The politics of PhD examining

Even in this opening chapter, this book will have signalled that higher degreeexamining in the UK at the present time most certainly does not operate ona level playing field. In the absence of (as yet) clear benchmarking on whatconstitutes an M.Phil or a PhD and only variable, institution-specific guide-lines on how the assessment is to be conducted, it is not surprising that thevarious parties’ personal – and vested – interests rise to the fore. Indeed, it isimportant to acknowledge that the PhD examination is one in which candi-dates, supervisors and examiners are all potentially guilty of playing a polit-ical game. While instances of outright bribery are (hopefully!) few andfar between, this book will identify circumstances in which it is possible forone party to ‘put pressure’ on another in any number of ways. Possiblecompromising scenarios include:

• The candidate’s supervisor asking a friend/colleague to examine (i.e.‘pass’) his or her student’s thesis as a favour. (This often exists as a long-term ‘reciprocal’ arrangement between examiners.)

• The supervisor inviting someone to be an examiner because they knowthey have a shared political agenda (e.g. both are Marxists or feminists)which would make it hard to fail the thesis in question on ideologicalgrounds.

• The supervisor/department inviting a young/inexperienced person to bean examiner (either internal or external) because they are expected togive the candidate an easy time.

• The supervisor/department appointing someone to be an examiner(either internal or external) because they are known to be ‘a light touch’.

• The candidate ‘reminding’ the supervisor/department that they have hadless than ideal supervision and will consequently be presenting a case tothe university should any ‘problems’ arise at the viva.


• The candidate being ‘known’ to one or other of the examiners either as afriend or as a ‘friend of a friend’.

• One of the examiners agreeing to do the viva as a means of settling a scoreagainst either the candidate or (more usually) the supervisor. (This is oneof the arguments against having the supervisor present in the viva. It hasbeen known for internal examiners to ‘grill’ a student in a supervisor’spresence in order to humiliate the latter.)

• One of the examiners seeking to impress/intimidate the other (some-times with the added intention of making sure that the thesis is passed/failed when the other examiner is known to feel oppositely).

• One of the examiners seeking to impress the supervisor and/or chair(especially if they are ‘senior’ and/or the examiner concerned is insecureabout their research record).

• One, or both, of the examiners believing consciously, or unconsciously,that they are ‘gatekeepers’ for their subject (see Tinkler and Jackson 2004:23–4).

To readers of this book who are themselves new to examining, this insightinto the ‘realpolitik’ of higher degree examining may, at first, seem incredibleand alarming. The best way to understand such practice, and why it happens,is to remind yourself that this is an area of assessment where there is noestablished best practice and that many of the ‘abuses of power’ listed aboveare, in fact, no more than the malign ‘other side’ of behaviour that is deemedperfectly acceptable. In the course of this book I will, for example, be notingthat most supervisors/directors of study aim to ‘find out something’ abouttheir potential external examiners as human beings as well as academicsbefore appointing them. In other words, it is a fine line between making anappointment on a general recommendation and something more than arecommendation (i.e. a tip-off that such and such a person is a ‘light touch’).Similarly, there is good common sense in supervisors selecting examinerswhom they consider to be ideologically sympathetic – even though they maynever have dreamt of this shared politics being used to blackmail the exam-iner into coming to ‘the right result’. Indeed, what is tricky in any attempt toopen the lid on higher degree assessment is the fact that many of the man-oeuvrings – by supervisors, students and examiners – are largely unconscious.This certainly applies to most of the ‘bad behaviour’ of examiners in the vivaitself: how many of us, after all, would admit to ourselves that we were tryingto impress the other examiner and/or humiliate the supervisor? And yetplenty have done, albeit under the spurious auspices of ‘professionalism’.

At the present time, higher degree examination in the UK is liable to badpractice and/or foul play for two main reasons: first, there is no clearly andwidely established good practice; second, the examination room is com-prised of too many (vulnerable) egos. While it should only be the candidatewho is obliged to ‘prove’ him- or herself, sadly he or she is often in competi-tion with examiners fulfilling personal agendas which those on the outsidecan only guess at.


For all these reasons, and more, then, higher degree examining in the UKis open to a malign, as well as a benign, exploitation of its liberal framework.At numerous points in this book I will consider how some of the worst abusesof power can be prevented; however, it seems clear that the only sure way oflevelling out the playing field is to replace the ‘two examiner’ assessmentsystem with a ‘public’ panel of three or four assessors whose questioningwould, like the candidate’s, be open to scrutiny. Indeed, it may be thoughtthat continental Europe and the USA have retained variations of this modelfor good reason.


2Your appointment as examiner

The aim of this chapter is to define the roles of examiners before theycommence the work of examining. These will include:

• being approached to be a higher degree examiner;• becoming familiar with institutional guidelines and regulations;• establishing criteria for assessment.

The chapter will provide numerous examples of the differences in assess-ment criteria that examiners are likely to encounter, emphasizing the abso-lute importance of checking out local regulations on each and everyoccasion you are appointed to the job. The discussion will also reflect uponthe ‘politics’ of the appointment process and some of the unspoken implica-tions of the assessment criteria. Be warned: from the moment you areapproached to examine a higher degree nothing is quite as it seems!

2.1 Being approached to examine a thesis:what you need to know

The first time you are approached to examine a PhD you may well feelflattered and daunted in equal measure. The more obviously the thesisrelates to your own specialism, the less daunting the invitation is likely toseem, but colleagues should be aware that ‘young’ or ‘green’ examiners aresometimes selected for their inexperience rather than their specialism per se.The assumption on the part of many supervisors/directors of study is thatyounger, less experienced examiners are prone to be more generous thantheir crusty, over-rigorous elders. Clearly there is no guarantee of this, butfaced with a ‘weak’ thesis, a well-known specialist with a fearsome reputation,and a young lecturer who might just ‘give it the nod’, there’s no prizes forguessing which way many supervisors will be inclined. Needless to say, youshould be wary of accepting invitations that you suspect fall into this category

in case you find yourself under pressure to pass a thesis that you have seriousreservations about. Tinkler and Jackson (2004: 103) quote a senior professorwho is well aware of this sort of scenario:

Typically: senior academic and principal supervisor (possibly Head ofDepartment) engages guru from University of Wessex with whom he(sic) has worked for many years – and who owes him a favour – to act asexternal examiner. He then approaches some malleable departmentalcolleague in the department, inviting her (sic) to act as internal. Shefeels privileged, obliged to accept (for what are the grounds forrefusal?) or merely that this is an important opportunity in her profes-sional development. She finds the thesis of poor standard, but is thencalled by the external saying ‘there’s no problem here is there?’ etc etcetc. But, if not a guru, it could be your best friend, the editor of yourprofessional journal or a fellow member of the AUT executive.

Many institutions in the UK have regulations that require inexperiencedexternals to be compensated for by more experienced internals (often theappointment form requests information on how many M.Phils/PhDs havebeen examined), but this may well give rise to an undesirable power dynamicin both the viva itself and the final assessment (i.e. the internal examinerleading the discussion and dominating the decision-making process). Otherinstitutions attempt to address the issue of inexperience (in either theexternal or internal examiner) by requesting an additional (experienced)examiner to be present.

The best advice regarding this sort of situation is for new examiners tothink twice about invitations to examine theses outside their specialisms. Forthis reason, it is also extremely desirable that prospective examiners be sent acopy of the thesis abstract at the time the invitation is made. A typical (‘real-life’) scenario that I am aware of involves a young female academic who wasinvited to act as internal examiner for a weak/borderline PhD in her firstyear as a full-time lecturer. Looking back, it is now clear to the person con-cerned that she was chosen over her more experienced colleagues in orderto give the candidate a better chance. The fact that the research only relatedto her own interests in the broadest sense naturally made it hard for her toform an independent judgement of a thesis which, with hindsight, she iscertain should have been referred.

At this point it is, of course, important to acknowledge that the ‘soft touch’factor influences the appointment of experienced as well as inexperiencedexaminers: most supervisors and directors of study will make some effort todiscover the reputation of their examiners with respect to both generalstringency and behaviour in the oral examination itself, and choices will bemade between examiners on that basis.

It is seldom a case of opting for the examiner(s) simply because they areassumed to be the most lenient, however. Inasmuch as doctoral candidatesalso require examiners of sufficient prestige and eminence to help thecandidate’s future career, those making the appointment are involved in a

Your appointment as examiner 31

delicate balancing act in which reputation, intellectual rigour, scholarly rig-our, personality, gender, age and flexibility will all come into the equation.

The more robust the thesis and the candidate, the more risks those mak-ing the appointments are likely to take; indeed, candidates themselves some-times express their willingness to engage in a ‘dust-up’ for the sake of havinga top specialist examine their thesis. Here I am mindful of a case where bothstudent and supervisor chose an examiner who they knew would give thestudent a hard ride because he was, nevertheless, pre-eminent in the field.The viva was, indeed, a memorable event. It lasted in excess of four hours,and both the candidate and the examiner emerged at the end looking rag-ged and exhausted! Some fairly substantive changes and additions to thethesis were requested by the examiner, but otherwise it was deemed ‘excel-lent’ and – in due course – the thesis (which was made into a book) won anaward. This is a clear case, then, of a student and her advisers choosing short-term pain in the interests of long-term gain. All those concerned knew thatthis candidate would probably have got her PhD more easily with anotherexaminer, but taking the more challenging route she corrected her PhD tothe best possible standard and reaped the rewards subsequently: a salutaryreminder that the ‘soft touch’ examiner might not necessarily be the mostdesirable option as far as the candidate is concerned.

Having introduced this section with some discussion of the sorts ofpolitical decision that surround the appointment of examiners, I will nowproceed to outline the practicalities.

Although all appointments of examiners at higher degree level involvepaperwork of some kind, that is about the only common denominator (evenwithin the UK). Who does the appointing; how, and by whom, the examineris first contacted; and the form the paperwork takes are all significant vari-ables. Indeed, there is often no standard practice even within individualdepartments: sometimes the candidate’s supervisor might suggest, and con-tact, the examiners without involving the director of postgraduate studies atall (indeed, they might take responsibility for all the examination arrange-ments). In other instances, the process is handed over to the director and/ortheir secretary to a greater or lesser degree.

The extreme variability in procedure at this stage of the examination pro-cess is clearly of some concern in QAA terms, and emphasizes yet again whatan uneven playing field we are dealing with. At one end of the spectrum wehave a scenario in which the candidate’s supervisor runs though a mental listof friends and colleagues who would make suitable (and, perhaps, suitably‘kind’) examiners and who starts the ball rolling with a simple phone call; atthe other end, we find departments and institutions who categorically forbidtheir supervisors to determine, or expedite, the appointments. In thesecases, it is normally the director of postgraduate studies who makes the finalchoice, even though the supervisor will (hopefully!) have been consulted.Probably the more common ‘compromise’ between these two extremes is asituation in which the supervisor (possibly, though not necessarily, in con-versation with the candidate) suggests a name to the director, who then writes


to the person concerned (informally, in the first instance) and then pro-ceeds with the formal appointment if the invitation is accepted. Tinkler andJackson’s research on the appointment of examiners has revealed significantdifferences between sciences and humanities/social sciences vis-à-vis thecandidate’s involvement (45 per cent science; 77 per cent arts and human-ities) (Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 65). It would, however, require a majorsurvey to discover which is the most popular route to appointment within theUK and examiners (both internal and external) must be prepared to beapproached by supervisors and more senior officials.

No matter who first approaches you, and regardless of what strategies theymight employ to persuade you to do the job, at some point an officialappointment – involving paperwork – will take place.

In many UK institutions it is now common for the appointing institution torequest an examiner’s CV or, at very least, detailed information about hisor her past examining experience. At Lancaster University, for instance,examiners (both internal and external) are asked:

• How many M.Phils/PhDs have you supervised to completion?• How many M.Phils have you examined internally?• How many M.Phils have you examined externally?• How many PhDs have you examined internally?• How many PhDs have you examined externally?

They are also asked to provide details of their full qualifications and researchspecialisms, together with a disclaimer that they have in any way beeninvolved in the candidate’s supervision. Some institutions (e.g. SheffieldHallam) also set a limit on how many times an external can examine in thesame department.

It is most certainly worth being aware of these specifications at the start ofa higher degree examining career, since most of us who have been doing thejob a long time now struggle to come up with the figures. It is thus goodpractice to keep a note (if not on your CV, then in a separate file) of eachM.Phil/PhD you examine (along with another list of everyone you havesupervised), giving full details of author, title, date etc. As the years go by thissort of information gets harder and harder to recover, believe me!

Once your form has been satisfactorily completed and returned to whom-ever sent it to you, it will normally be sent to the Postgraduate Registry of thecandidate’s university for their approval. There, senior administrative staffwill scrutinize the forms of all the examiners involved in a particular viva, andmake a judgement concerning the overall level of experience etc. Providingall is satisfactory (and it is here that contingencies like additional examinersmight be deployed), you should then receive an official appointment letter.This is a contract of sorts, and should be read carefully and treated with somerespect, since – if the examination should prove tricky – it will become yourfirst point of reference. With the official appointment letter you will normallyreceive a booklet or paperwork outlining the university’s regulations onhigher degrees and their examination, together with the sheets on which you


will make your reports (both pre- and post-viva) and an expenses claim form. Ishall return to the nature of this paperwork in greater detail in due course.

2.2 Training, induction and guidelines

As was noted in the previous chapter, the training and induction of exam-iners of higher degrees in the UK is virtually non-existent. There are fewexceptions to this, such as the programmes run by John Wakeford at theMissenden Centre (Wakeford 2004), but I am not aware of any universitiesthat prepare their staff for this sort of work as part of their professionaldevelopment, and it is rare to find the candidate’s institution providing any-thing by way of induction outside the guidelines sent with the appointmentof examiners letter. This is in significant contrast with BA and MA pro-grammes across the UK, many of which now offer significant training pack-ages for their examiners. Usually in the form of one- or two-day intensivecourses, these sessions have clearly been implemented for QAA purposesand are especially visible in the post-1992 universities. Although it may onlybe a matter of time before such training and support is provided at higherdegree level, intending examiners should be aware of how vulnerable itspresent absence might leave them should the examination prove problem-atic. While examiners are rarely disciplined or legislated against when a viva‘goes wrong’, it is not uncommon for individuals to be unofficially black-listed by the institution in question (and ‘viva horror stories’ tend to travelfast in the academic world!).

The reason why external examiners are exempt from training and induc-tion has already been touched upon in Chapter 1 in the context of theintellectual esteem in which such an appointment is held. As was noted,many academics – across the disciplines – will find the notion that an exam-iner should require ‘training’ in the very thing that is, supposedly, his or herspecialism, completely absurd. Indeed, many would feel insulted to be askedto undertake such training. Such a response is, of course, to confuse aca-demic expertise with the more professional and bureaucratic aspects of thejob. For example, the fact that some ‘viva preparation’ programmes nowprepare students for certain types of question, in a certain order (seeChapter 5), does not mean that the examiner(s) will have ever thought ofa viva in such terms. For many, the intellectual content of the thesis is allthat really matters and how this manifests itself in terms of examinationtechnique is entirely random.

As quality assurance and litigation (by candidates against institutions andexaminers) has increased, most institutions have nevertheless tightened upconsiderably on their examination and assessment guidelines. These are nowquite weighty documents, and – in the UK – unique to each institution. It ishoped that by reproducing substantive sections of these guidelines in sections2.6 and 2.7 readers will glean some sense of their substance, significance andvariability.


Readers are also reminded that in Chapter 1 I quoted the BPS Guidelines(2000) on how young or inexperienced examiners may compensate for thelack of proper induction or training through certain ‘self-help’ initiatives. Itis clear that even ‘second-hand’ experience is better than examining yourfirst PhD with no experience at all.

2.3 Institutional formalities: what you need tocheck out in advance

It is essential that all prospective examiners are aware of just how variable theprocedures for higher degree examination are across different institutions.It could be argued that one of the reasons why these examinations give riseto such grief – for both candidates and examiners – is that the examinersbring criteria, expectations and procedures they are used to elsewhere toa context where ‘things are done differently’. The huge difference inpractice between Oxbridge higher degree examinations and those at otherinstitutions should be noted in particular.

The sensible advice, therefore, must be for examiners to find out some-thing about higher degree examining in the institution to which they havebeen appointed before they are sent the paperwork. For example, it is worthasking the person who first makes contact with you what you might expect interms of a contract; also (and perhaps most importantly) what the usualturnaround time is between the receipt of the thesis and the viva. If you arelikely to have a problem with meeting, say, a three-month deadline followingthe receipt of the thesis it is clearly best to say so right away.

It is also good to find out at this early stage what form the viva will take. Forexample:

• How many examiners will there be?• Who will they be?• Will there be a chair?• Will the supervisor be present?

2.4 Fees, expenses and taxation: proceduresyou should know about

The mantra here, yet again, is that institutions in the UK are extremelyvariable in both what they pay their examiners and how they pay them. Inrecent times, letters to the academic press have revealed the examiners ofhigher degrees to be paid scandalously low amounts at certain institutions,and this is clearly one of the things presently undermining the professional-ism of the job.

For most of us who have acted as examiners over a long period of time,however, the greater scandal is surely the fact that – by and large – internal


examiners are expected to do the job without any payment whatsoever. Thefact that such duties are normally visited upon colleagues on top of analready crammed schedule adds insult to injury, and it is remarkable thatthey continue to expedite this duty with such goodwill and conscientiousness(not least because it tends to be the same colleagues – for reasons of seniorityor reputation – who tend to get asked again and again).

At the time of going to press, the average rate of pay for externals examin-ing a PhD is c. £100 and for internals (at the institutions which have such asystem) c. £35. As far as I am aware, these are rates that have changed littleover the past 10 to 15 years and there is surely a need for a thorough reviewof the system. The BPS Guidelines (2000) endorse this point and advise that:‘prior to accepting appointments, external examiners should draw the atten-tion of employing institutions to any comparative information about rates ofpay which might be appropriate’ and also warn that ‘external examinersshould not agree to re-examine a thesis unless an adequate re-examination feeis offered’ (BPS 2000: 21, emphasis added).

This pay is, of course, also taxed – usually at source – so that what theexaminer finally receives for perhaps up to two weeks’ work (and/or c. 20hours of reading) can be considered nothing more than a token. No one inthe UK ever undertook higher degree examination to get rich!

At the same time, colleagues should be warned that unless they are taxedat source they must declare this income in any self-employment pages oftheir annual tax return: it is just the sort of undeclared income that could getyou into trouble if, some years down the line, the Inland Revenue elects tomake a retrospective investigation into your ‘additional’ income. (There aresome notorious ‘real-life’ instances where this has happened!)

In most cases, you will receive your expenses and travel claim forms withyour letter of contract and procedural guidelines. Remember to keep thesesafe until after the viva is over (it is all too easy to carry them around with thethesis, and then lose them). Remember to hold onto all your travel tickets,receipts etc.: most institutions now require these to be submitted with theclaim forms. You should also be aware that most institutions have a (fairlystingy!) limit on the cost of hotel rooms and the examiner’s dinner: it istherefore highly probable that you will be booked into mid-range accom-modation (or, indeed, college rooms if you are examining at Oxfordor Cambridge) and that your host will come to lunch/dinner with thedepartment’s contribution firmly capped!

Finally: it is probably best if you take responsibility for sending yourexpenses forms back to the institution yourself. Internal examiners and/orsupervisors have a habit of losing them – especially after a post-vivacelebration.


2.5 Receiving the thesis: checkingthe paperworkAlong with your letter of appointment you should receive:

• A copy of the thesis (complete with abstract and signed declaration thatthe work is the candidate’s own).

• Guidelines on how higher degrees are evaluated at that particular institu-tion and particular qualities you are to expected to assess (e.g. originality,familiarity with the field, publishability).

• Explicit instructions on each step of the examination process (from pre-viva to post-viva).

• Explicit instructions on the different categories (‘recommendations’) bywhich the thesis may be assessed (e.g. ‘pass forthwith’, ‘pass with minorcorrections’, referral, fail) (see 2.7).

• Report forms: preliminary report, post-viva, other.• Claim form for fees.• Claim form for expenses.

Please note that report forms and expenses forms are often returned todifferent personnel in different sections of the university.

2.6 Criteria for assessment: M.Phil, PhDand othersUnder this heading we deal with the guidelines for the evaluation of thehigher degree at the institution for which you are examining, before movingon in 2.7 to the categories of pass/fail which are likely to be available to you.The latter are usually headed ‘Recommendations’.

Considering the amount of academic and funding-council-led debatethere now is concerning the question ‘What is a PhD?’ and ‘By what meansdo we assess it?’, it is striking how slow institutions have been to respond intheir advice to examiners (see research by Phillips and Pugh 1994; Under-wood 1999; Shaw and Green 2002; Tinkler and Jackson 2004). Indeed, mostguidelines from across the UK appear to be unchanged in this particular. Forthe majority of universities, for instance, ‘originality’ continues to be setforth as the prerequisite of the PhD (as opposed to the MA or the M.Phil)without any attempt to address the multiplicity of ways in which ‘originality’may be defined. As will be seen in Section 3.6, Philips and Pugh exposed theextreme ambiguity of the term, especially as it was understood across differ-ent disciplines. Indeed, some would argue that this ambiguity has rendered‘originality’ a very unsafe criterion for assessment, and yet most institutionscontinue to trumpet it as a gold standard that all examiners will somehowinstinctively know and recognize.

Other ‘qualities’ that are repeatedly asked of the PhD are a demonstrable‘knowledge of the field’ and ‘publishablity’ (usually with the addendum: ‘in


whole or in part’). The first of these is especially interesting in that (in thehumanities and social sciences, at least) it could be said to be what dis-tinguishes a PhD from a future book on the same subject: while publisherstend to shy away from books too bogged down in ‘background information’,most academic disciplines require a thesis to contain some sort of ‘literaturereview’. The purpose of this (as readers are doubtless aware) is preciselyto test ‘knowledge of the field’ and (ideally) to situate the present workadvantageously within it.

‘Publishability’, meanwhile, is another seriously ambiguous concept, espe-cially since, for the purpose of the examination, it is not going to be tested bymarket forces and/or a substantive peer review. The addendum ‘in whole orin part’ has also permitted many PhDs to scrape a pass when the examinersknow, in their heart of hearts, that the thesis has virtually no chance of everbeing published as a book. Most theses of 300+ pages should, after all, con-tain at least 5000 words that are publishable (especially if that publishabilityassumes that further work would have to be done to make the piecepublishable).

What all this suggests is that the key criteria used to assess doctoral thesesare extremely nebulous: despite the connotations of ‘something outstand-ing’, the more modest ways in which ‘originality’ and ‘publishability’ can beinterpreted mean that many theses that are rather less than outstanding getthrough perfectly well – although others won’t. At the end of the day, it verymuch depends upon the expectations of the examiners involved.

Apart from the three key criteria of ‘originality’, ‘knowledge of the field’and ‘publishability’ which are found in the guidelines of most UK uni-versities, other ‘measurable’ standards of the higher degree are eclectic andvariable. Take, for instance, the following excerpts from the universities ofLancaster, Durham and Oxford:

Lancaster University: criteria for the award of PhD

The degree shall be awarded on the examination of a thesis embodyingthe results of a candidate’s research, and on an oral examination. Thenature of the student’s research programme should be on a scale whichcan be completed during three years, or at most four years, of full-timestudy or equivalent. In addition the candidate may be required toundertake such other tests as the examiners may decide.

A successful candidate for the degree of PhD shall show convincingevidence of the capacity to pursue scholarly research or scholarship inhis or her field of study on a scale which can be completed during threeyears of full-time research. The results of this research shall then beembodied in a thesis which makes an original contribution to know-ledge and the completed thesis must contain material of a standardappropriate to scholarly publication. The thesis shall comply with therequirements for the form, submission and deposit of theses.

Source: Lancaster University (2003)


University of Durham: instructions to examiners for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

(6) The PhD thesis is based on nine terms of full-time supervised study inthe University (or a period deemed to be equivalent for candidates pro-ceeding by part-time or mixed part-time and full-time study) and examin-ers are asked to take this into account in reporting on the thesis. In mak-ing their recommendations examiners should note the following criteriaand requirements by which a candidate is deemed to be satisfactory:

(a) Distinct ability must be shown in conducting original investigationsand in testing ideas, whether his or her own, or those of others.

(b) The candidate is expected to show understanding of the relation-ship of the special theme of the thesis to a wider field of knowledgeand to be familiar with previously published work on the subject.

(c) The thesis should include an original contribution to knowledge. Itshould include matter worthy of publication though it need not besubmitted in a form suitable for publication.

(d) The thesis must be clear, concise, well-written and orderly. Its pre-sentation, general arrangement and style should be satisfactory.

(e) The candidate is to be examined orally on the subject of the thesisand subjects related thereto. The results of the oral examinationshould be satisfactory.

Source: University of Durham (2001)

University of Oxford: memorandum for examiners for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

(4) Standard required (D.Phil.) Examiners are asked to bear in mindthat their judgement of the substantial significance of work submittedshould take into account what may reasonably be expected of a capableand diligent student after three or at most four years of full time study.(Possible interruptions and unforseen difficulties will, of course, oftenmean that more than three or four years have elapsed between admis-sion and submission.)

(6.1) Award of the degree of D.Phil The Examination Decrees pre-scribe that the faculty board shall in no case permit the candidate tosupplicate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy unless the examinershave jointly reported in the following terms: (iv) that the candidatepossesses a good knowledge of the particular field of learning withinwhich the subject of the thesis falls; (v) that the candidate has made asignificant and substantial contribution in the particular field of learn-ing within which the subject of the thesis falls; (vi) that the thesis ispresented in a lucid and scholarly manner; (vii) that in their opinionthe thesis merits the degree of Doctor of Philosophy; and (viii) that thecandidate has presented a satisfactory abstract of the thesis.

Source: University of Oxford (2001)


It will be noted that these ‘instructions’ surface in different sections of theinstitutions’ guidelines: while Lancaster and Durham have sections aimedspecifically at defining the criteria for the different higher degrees, Oxfordincludes this in the section dealing specifically with ‘Recommendations’.This, of course, cautions examiners to read individual sets of guidelines verycarefully. Not only do the classifications available for higher degrees varysubstantively across institutions (see 2.7) but also in terms of the range ofcriteria on which they are assessed.

While all these institutions are united in their focus on the fact that thequality of the thesis should be assessed against the length of time that wasavailable for its research and production (i.e. three or at most four years),the issues of ‘originality’, ‘publishability’ and ‘contribution to/knowledge ofthe field’ are all calibrated in slightly different ways. Indeed, it will be notedthat Oxford – one of the institutions one might expect to have the mostexacting standards – does not mention ‘originality’ or ‘publishability’ at all.

There is, of course, no formal obligation for examiners to adjust theirpersonal evaluative criteria as they move from institution to institution, but itis always worth checking the variables. In the unhappy event of things goingwrong and a candidate bringing a case to bear against his or her universitythese things could start to matter (see 6.8).

A final word is needed regarding the criteria used to assess the two-yearresearch-centred M.Phil. As will be seen from the following specificationsfrom Lancaster University, this is a qualification which differs from thePhD both in the depth and breadth of the research conducted and (mostimportantly) in the length of time needed to complete the project.

Lancaster University: criteria for the award of M.Phil

The degree shall be awarded on the examination of a thesis embodyingthe results of the candidate’s research. An oral examination is required.The work for the degree shall consist mainly of research and directedstudy; the candidate may in addition be required to undertake course-work, and the award of the degree may be conditional on satisfactoryperformance in that coursework.

A successful candidate for the degree of M.Phil shall display a convincinggrasp of the techniques of research appropriate to the field of study on ascale which can be completed within two years, or at most three years offull-time study or equivalent. The thesis embodying the results of theresearch shall demonstrate evidence of originality, at least in the exer-cise of independent critical faculty, and shall achieve a high standard ofcompetence in argument and presentation. The thesis shall comply withthe requirements for the form, submission and deposit of theses.


Apart from a maximum time limit of two years instead of three, the mainthing that distinguishes this qualification from the PhD is the degree of


originality associated with the research. Although for some institutions aninsistence on originality is the thing that distinguishes a PhD from an M.Phil,Lancaster University’s desire to hold on to some element of independentand original thought (albeit it in modified form) is clearly an attempt tomake sure that this degree is itself distinguished from MA degrees byresearch (which make no claim at all for original thinking).

The allusion to a coursework component in Lancaster University’s regula-tions points to another variable within the UK. While some institutions,like Lancaster, attempt to capture both research-led and coursework-ledM.Phils in one category of degree, others will distinguish between the two.At Birmingham University, for example, it is possible to study for severaldifferent types of M.Phil.

University of Birmingham: categories of M.Phil

1 A two-year M.Phil ‘in which the key activity is undertaking researchcombined with appropriate training’ with a dissertation length of60,000 words.

2 A one-year M.Phil (Mode A) ‘in which the key activity is undertakingresearch, combined with appropriate training’ with a dissertationlength of 40,000 words.

3 A one-year M.Phil (Mode B) ‘with an emphasis on the acquisition ofresearch skills’ (i.e. more taught courses and directed study) with adissertation length of 20,000 words.

Source: University of Birmingham (2003)

So while the Lancaster guidelines have clearly been drawn up to enabledifferent departments/schemes to construe their M.Phils as they wish,Birmingham has set out three clearly distinguished routes and requires itsdepartments to opt for one of them. The fact that the one-year M.Phils areapparently equivalent in standard and scope to MAs by research elsewherealso complicates – and, some would argue, undermines – what was onceconnoted by this degree.1

Whether involving coursework or not, however, it is very clear from theseexamples that the M.Phil is defined by its intermediate status: more demandingthan an MA, but falling short of the breadth, depth and originality requiredof a PhD, the two-year research-led M.Phil is most certainly an exactinghigher degree in its own right even though its status and identity have beensomewhat undermined by the shadow role it plays to the PhD.

Length of higher degrees

Examiners should also be appraised of the fact that the length of M.Phils andPhDs is variable – and changing. Although there has been a notional ‘max-imum’ word length of 80,000–100,000 words for the British PhD for manyyears, many institutions are presently in the process of downsizing it to anabsolute maximum of 80,000. (The rationale here is that the increasing pres-sure on students to ‘complete’ within three or four years requires this.) Thelength of the M.Phil by research varies more widely throughout the UK, but


is rarely in excess of 60,000 words. It should also be noted that at someinstitutions distinctions are drawn between disciplines. At Sheffield HallamUniversity, for example, higher degrees in science, engineering, art anddesign stand at 40,000 words for the PhD and 20,000 words for the M.Phil,while in arts, social sciences and education the word limit is increased to80,000 and 40,000 respectively.

2.7 Results/recommendations

As well as being issued with guidelines on what is expected of a particularhigher degree for the institution at which you are examining, you will also bepresented with a range of possible ‘results’. These will range from ‘Passforthwith’ to an outright ‘Fail’ – but the range of possibilities in betweenvaries enormously from institution to institution, to the extent, indeed, thatexaminers have been known to say that it is (quote) ‘impossible to fail a PhDat such and such university!’. This blatant inequity is a matter of huge con-cern for HEFCE and quality assurance in general, but it is not something thatwe can expect to be put to right overnight. For this reason, this section hasbeen written assuming that the current range of variables is still in place and– to make a point – opens with examples of the ‘possible recommendations’available to examiners at Lancaster, Birmingham, Durham and SheffieldHallam:

Lancaster University: degree of Doctor of Philosophy: summary ofexaminer’s final recommendation

(1) The degree of PhD should be awarded. Please tick either a, b, or cbelow:(a) Forthwith(b) Subject to corrections being made (typographical errors, occa-

sional stylistic or grammatical flaws, corrections to references,etc). Corrections should be made within 3 months from thenotification of the result of the decision. If corrections arerequired, is the external willing that these should be verified bythe internal examiner only? [Yes/No]

(c) Subject to amendments being made (minor deficiencies,requiring some textual revisions). Amendments should bemade within 6 months from the notification of the result of thedecision. If amendments are required, is the external willingthat these should be verified by the internal examiner only?[Yes/No]

(2) The degree of PhD should NOT be awarded. Please tick either a, b,or c below:(a) Permission should be given for the thesis to be revised and

resubmitted within 12 months for the degree of PhD. If resub-mission is recommended please enclose with your report, on a


separate sheet, advice about modifications to the thesis. Thesewill be sent to the student within 1 month of the viva voceexamination.

(b) The degree of M.Phil be awarded.(c) Permission should be given for the thesis to be revised and

resubmitted within 12 months for the degree of M.Phil. Ifresubmission is recommended please enclose with your report,on a separate sheet, advice about modifications to the thesiswhich will be sent to the candidate within 1 month of the vivavoce examination.Source: Lancaster University’s ‘Examiner’s viva voce report form’

University of Birmingham: recommendations available to examiners

(1) Award the Degree: all of the requirements for the degree have beenmet and the thesis is essentially free from typographical errors.

(2) Minor Corrections: are matters which do not alter the results and/or conclusions of the thesis in any way. These may be errors andomissions of a clerical nature, or minor changes in phraseology orsmall improvements in descriptions or explanations, or correctionsof faults in subsidiary arguments . . . Candidates will normally berequired to complete the corrections within one month of the dateon which the letter informing them of the result is issued by theResearch Team, unless further time is permitted by the examiners.Minor corrections will be subject to approval by the internalexaminer . . .

(3) Major Corrections: are matters which are in excess of minor correc-tions but not, in the opinion of the examiners, sufficient to requirerevision and resubmission of the thesis. Such corrections mayinvolve rewriting sections, correction of calculations or clarificationand amendment of arguments. The award of the degree is withhelduntil a certificate is provided by the examiners confirming that allcorrections have been completed. Nevertheless, it is expected thatthe candidate, once the major corrections have been made, willreach the required standard for the degree. Candidates will nor-mally be required to complete the corrections within six months ofthe date on which the letter informing them of the result is issued bythe Research Team, unless further time is permitted by the examin-ers. Major corrections will be subject to the approval of both theinternal and the external examiners . . .

(4) Revise and Resubmit for either the same or a lower qualification:reflect that substantial revisions are required to the thesis involving,for example, rewriting sections or the introduction of significantnew material or of further experiments, calculations or research, orprofound correction of an argument. There is no guarantee that therevised thesis will reach the required standard for the award of the


degree. A full re-examination of the thesis will be required, includ-ing the preparation of the report form and the obligatory oral examfor candidates resubmitting a thesis for a doctoral degree. Candi-dates may be exempted from oral examination only in exceptionalcircumstances and with the approval of the Research PostgraduateCommittee. Candidates will normally be required to complete therevision and resubmission of the thesis within one year of the dateon which the letter informing them of the result is issued by theResearch Team, unless further time is permitted by the examiners. Amore limited range of recommendations is open to examiners of a resubmittedthesis – that the appropriate degree should be awarded or subject to minorcorrections or a lower degree should be awarded with or without minorcorrections or the thesis should be rejected without the possibility forresubmission.

(5) Award lower qualification with or without corrections or revisions:where the thesis and/or candidate’s performance in an oral exam(if appropriate) is unsatisfactory for the degree for which the candi-date was registered, but that with corrections or revisions it mayultimately merit the award of a lower degree. Candidates have theright to appeal against this decision.

(6) Reject without the opportunity for resubmission: where the thesisand/or the candidate’s performance in the oral examination (ifappropriate) is unsatisfactory. In the view of the examiners, there isno reasonable prospect of the candidate being able, in a reasonabletime, to amend the thesis or improve their performance in the oralexamination, as to merit the award of a research degree. Candidateshave the right to appeal against this decision.

Source: University of Birmingham (2003, emphasis added)

University of Durham: instructions to examiners for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

After the oral examination . . . both examiners should jointly completePart B of the Report Form, commenting on the candidate’s perform-ance overall, and making one of the following recommendations:

(1) That the candidate be admitted to the degree of PhD forthwith.(2) That the candidate be admitted to the degree of PhD after minor

corrections to the thesis specified by the examiners in accordancewith *[9] below.

(3) That the candidate be not admitted to the degree of PhD . . .

*[9] Where examiners recommend that the candidate be admitted tothe degree of PhD after minor corrections have been made to thethesis, such minor corrections should require no further research bythe candidate. They shall be largely mechanical in nature, such astypographical and grammatical corrections and/or rewriting of smallsections of a thesis to clarify issues, particularly in response to


material provided by the candidate to the examiners at the oralexamination. Where a candidate has satisfied the examiners orally onpoints not included in the written thesis, but which in the examiners’view should be so included, these must subsequently be incorporatedinto the thesis as minor corrections . . . The normal procedure forchecking that the corrections have been made to the satisfaction ofthe examiners is to obtain the confirmation from the internal exam-iner . . . On the first occasion of the examination, where the recom-mendation is that the candidate be not admitted to the degree ofPhD, the examiners should either: (a) recommend that the candi-date be permitted to submit the thesis in a revised form for thedegree of PhD, provided that in the examiners’ judgement the can-didate would be in a position to comply with the requirement that athesis presented in a revised form must be submitted within onecalendar year; or (b) having obtained from the Registrar copies ofthe Instructions to Examiners and Examiners Report Form(s) for theMaster’s degree(s) by thesis in the Faculty concerned, recommendon the appropriate Report Form that a lesser degree be awarded(either directly or after revision of the thesis); or (c) recommend thatthe candidate be not permitted to submit his or her thesis in a revisedform for the degree of PhD nor be allowed to proceed to a Master’sdegree, nor be allowed to submit the degree for a Master’s degree i.e.that the failure be complete.

Source: University of Durham (2001)

Sheffield Hallam University: R14.3 recommendations available to theexaminers

Following the completion of the examination the examiners mayrecommend that:

a) the candidate be awarded the degree; orb) the candidate be awarded the degree subject to minor amendments

being made to the thesis (see paragraph R14.4); orc) the candidate be permitted to re-submit for the degree and be re-

examined, with or without an oral examination (see section R15); ord) the candidate be not awarded the degree and be not permitted to be

re-examined (see paragraph R14.9); ore) in the case of a PhD examination, the candidate be awarded the

degree of M.Phil subject to the presentation of the thesis amended tothe satisfaction of the examiners, and provided the candidate clearlysatisfies the requirements for M.Phil as indicated in R1.4 above.Where minor amendments are required . . . the candidate must sub-mit the corrected thesis within four months of the date of the oralexamination. The Research Degrees Sub-Committee may, wherethere are good reasons, approve an extension of this period.

Source: Sheffield Hallam University (2002)


A quick glance at the different options available across these institutionsshould make clear to readers that examining a higher degree at one institu-tion does not necessarily make you an ‘old hand’.

Focusing on the ‘corrections’ options available it will be noted, in particu-lar, how some institutions (e.g. Lancaster) offer far more flexibility thanothers when it comes to ‘minor corrections’: to the extent that the ‘three-month minor corrections’ period has now become the most popular cat-egory of pass at that institution. Under its auspices candidates are allowed tomake minor changes to the text (insertions of a line or two) as well as tocorrect typos, thus avoiding the need for the more substantive (six-month)‘amendments’ or the twelve-month ‘referral’. The University of Birming-ham’s categories of ‘minor’ and ‘major’ corrections are very similar toLancaster’s ‘corrections’ and ‘amendments’, and both – like Lancaster – putthe candidate in a ‘provisional pass’ category. The Birmingham regulationsare also very good at spelling out what options are available to examinersdealing with resubmitted degrees (see 6.5); this is often less than clear inother institutional guidelines. In the case of Sheffield Hallam, for instance,there is no specific advice on what the ‘minor amendments’ may or may notinclude (beyond the implication that they must be ‘doable’ within fourmonths).

It will be seen that the Universities of Oxford, Durham and SheffieldHallam present their examiners with fewer ‘correction categories’ remind-ing us that, before these categories were expanded, candidates – and exam-iners – were often faced with the stark choice of ‘pass’, ‘minor corrections’(i.e., very minor, typographical errors) or an immediate ‘referral’.

Durham is especially distinctive in the emphasis it puts on the viva in termsof minor corrections, with the oral exam clearly operating both as a test ofthe candidate’s ability to undertake and fulfil the necessary changes and, itseems, the means by which ‘minor’ and ‘major’ changes are authorized.(The subtext here would seem to be that the changes may be fairly substan-tive and still count as ‘minor’ corrections provided the examiners areconfident that the candidate can execute them satisfactorily in the timepermitted.) This is thus a rather different way of judging and permittingcorrections than the prescriptive categories enforced by Lancaster andBirmingham.

In conclusion, then, it will be seen that nowhere is the idiosyncratic statusof the British higher degree – or the criteria used to assess it – more con-spicuous than in these institutional guidelines. While it is possible to arguethat a good deal of the advice, and calibration, boils down to ‘much the samething’ there is still enough ambiguity to remind examiners that every timethey agree to take on the job it is effectively a new one.


3Reading the thesis

This chapter considers the most obvious – but probably one of the leastdiscussed – aspects of higher degree examining: reading the thesis. Not sur-prisingly, this is part of the job that the examiners, as subject specialists, areassumed to need no ‘training’ in. There is a good deal of truth in that, ofcourse, but the following pages will hopefully offer some insights into how tomake the undertaking as easy and efficient as possible. Reading a book orthesis for your own research purposes is rather different to reading it for thepurposes of assessment.

3.1 Reading the thesis: diligence vs.expedience

Although this will hopefully not be the case for readers here, many academ-ics come to the job of examining an M.Phil or PhD horribly over-committed.

In other words, they find themselves in the position of trying to read andassess a 300-page thesis at the same time that they are organizing a confer-ence, sitting on an appointment committee or marking exams. Notinfrequently, they will also end up examining more than one M.Phil/PhD inthe course of a term or a semester.

While all this might seem like very poor time management on behalf of theacademics concerned, it is partly a consequence of the time-lag betweenwhen examiners first agree to undertake the work and when the viva is (even-tually) scheduled to take place. Although many institutions have some sortof guidelines on ‘the maximum period’ allowed between when a thesis issubmitted/sent out and when it is examined (e.g. three months), mostexaminers are ‘approached’ way before then and hence say ‘yes’ to an eventthat has, as yet, no date attached to it. Indeed, the viva will be assumed to be‘months away’ until the day a rather large and heavy package arrives on yourdesk.

It is as a result of this absence of an ‘estimated time of arrival’ that many of

us find ourselves performing the extremely demanding – and extremelytime-consuming – job of reading a thesis in far less time than is desirable.How do we cope?

The most honest answer is simply that we do our best in the time available.While, ideally, we might choose to set aside two weeks to read the thesis, weinstead make do with one – and subsequently keep our heads down, day andnight, until the job is done.1 True, we may not be reading quite as closely aswe would like, but we are, nevertheless, maintaining an acceptable level ofprofessionalism. Moreover, our expertise in the subject allows us evaluate the‘big claims’ (and the way they are presented) with some authority.

Are there any problems with this? Not as a matter of principle, perhaps,but certainly with respect to the effectiveness of the expediency. In otherwords, when it comes to examining higher degrees, there are limits to howmany corners may be cut, how many pages skipped. There are limits beyondwhich it is not possible to write a full and judicious report; and there arelimits regarding the professional standards we surely all set ourselves whenundertaking such work.

The further issue here is what, in particular, gets lost when the reading of athesis is more rushed than it should be? In humanities and social sciencesubjects, it is almost certainly an attention to presentation and minor typo-graphical errors: a reluctance, perhaps, to check every footnote against thebibliography or, indeed, the accuracy of quotations.

Many of us will be able to square our prioritizing of the content/argumentof the thesis over such ‘points of detail’ without too much trouble, and, atone level, this seems perfectly correct and reasonable. The complication,however, is that different examiners have very different ‘standards’ on mat-ters of presentation, and the expediency of one examiner’s approach couldbe so at odds with the diligence of another’s that they form a completelydifferent impression of the thesis. While this is clearly an issue of differentapproaches to scholarship as much as it is about the ‘speed reading’ of a thesis,examiners should be aware that too hasty a job might make them appear ill-prepared. It may also undermine their attempts to argue for the quality ofthe thesis in terms of the very content/argument they have focused on.

The advice? Be expedient in your reading and assessment of the thesis byall means, but if you do take short-cuts be aware of how the other examinermight exploit this in your subsequent haggling over the standard/quality ofthe work (e.g. they may point to a detail you’ve missed that questions thevalidity of the thesis). Further, be pragmatic: if you do not have time to checkall the references and quotations, then at least spot-check some – and bemindful of those aspects of the thesis (presentational or otherwise) that youhave not scrutinized as carefully as you know you might have done.

For new examiners, the only sensible advice must be: don’t let your-self get into this situation! Book the reading of the thesis into your diary wellin advance, allowing yourself (for example) three hours a day to read theindividual chapters one by one and take notes. Many examiners (from acrossthe disciplines) also believe it is good practice to read a thesis twice (once


before making the preliminary report, and again before the viva) so thesecond read should be booked into your diary with the reminder that nowork of 100,000 words can be read in much less than eight hours (evenwithout note-taking).

Meanwhile, at the extreme end of the ‘diligence’ pole there are stories ofcolleagues who have taken whole vacations to read and report on PhDs.Indeed, the fact that some examiners are prepared – or feel duty-bound – toput in so much time is another reason why there must be limits to expedi-ency in this type of examining. Although all of us will vary in how much timewe are prepared to spend on the job, we certainly need to feel that we havedone a ‘good enough’ job; anything less will seriously question why weagreed to do it in the first place.

Typos and corrections

Readers should be aware that most institutions insist upon detailed listsof amendments/typographical errors being supplied by the examinersalong with their post-viva reports. In other words, it is assumed thatthere is an editorial and/or ‘proofreading’ element to examining ahigher degree. ‘Skim-reading’ is therefore not an option! (See 3.9.)

3.2 Different ways of reading and assessingthe thesisApart from resolving within yourself how much time you need to spend – orare prepared to spend – on reading the thesis, there are, of course, optionsin how you go about it. The one you adopt is most likely to resemble theapproach you take to reading a book for the purposes of your own research,but the following checklist might suggest some useful new alternatives. InThe Doctoral Examination Process, Tinkler and Jackson (2004) cite recentresearch by Mullins and Kiley (2002) which confirms that there are, indeed,many different ways of reading a PhD thesis, and the following list combinestheir models with others that have become standard practice:

• Begin by looking in the references in order to check ‘knowledge of thefield’.

• Read slowly from the beginning, like a book, but taking copious notes.• Read the thesis swiftly for general impression, ‘sit on it’ a while, then

undertake more critical second reading.• Read the abstract, introduction, conclusion and table of contents first,

before starting on the actual chapters.• Read the literature review and methodology one weekend; read the

results and conclusion the next (Mullins and Kiley 2002: 376–7).• Read a chapter a night.• Put aside a whole week and read and take notes on a chapter each day.

Reading the thesis 49

• Begin by identifying key books/articles in the bibliography that will haveto be obtained/read in order to pass judgement on the thesis.

• During close reading, copy out key quotes/page references from eachchapter.

• During close reading, summarize contents/impressions of each chapterready for the pre-viva report.

• During close reading, make careful notes of more controversial pointsand possible viva questions.

• Check every reference cited is in the bibliography.• Spot-check references/bibliography at the end.• Perform spot-checks for the accuracy of quotations etc. once the final

read-through is complete.• Make notes on how the thesis could be restructured/revised during the

course of the reading.• List the key points/problems with each chapter.• Keep a running list of typos and minor corrections.• Correct typos etc. on the thesis itself (see 3.9).

Although none of the strategies listed here are mutually exclusive, it willbe seen that examiners can be broadly divided into two camps: those whoprefer to get a general overview of the thesis first and then proceed with amore detailed reading, and those who plunge into a close analysis straightaway. While the ‘skimming’/‘scanning’ techniques associated with the for-mer are a tried and tested research skill among academics, the case for thelatter clearly rests upon the rationale that a PhD is a text that has to be closelyread at some point. There is also evident variability between those whoattempt to summarize/write up their thoughts on the thesis as they go along,and those who wait until the end (indeed, sometimes until after a secondread-through). One job that all of us are compelled to do from the start is tokeep a list of typos and minor corrections, since no one would wish to read athesis a second (or third) time looking for these! (The practice of makingthese corrections on the text itself is dealt with in 3.9.) The extent to whichexaminers cross-reference/spot-check appears to be extremely variable, andrelates to wider (often highly political) issues about the nature/status ofscholarship and the importance of presentation.

This inventory of different approaches to reading a thesis – all based onfirst-hand or reported experience – clearly confirms that there is no ‘rightway’ to do the job. At the same time, it is hard not to see the value of gettingsome general sense of the thesis (its content, its accessibility, its sophistica-tion) before proceeding with a detailed chapter-by-chapter reading. For thisreason, I strongly endorse the practice of reading the abstract, introductionand (possibly) conclusion in advance; these, after all, are the places wherethe candidate’s research question(s) should be most sharply focused andyou, as examiner, are best able to assess the nature of the challenge that hasbeen set. Is this a suitably coherent and ambitious project? What will thecandidate have to do to succeed?


3.3 Evaluating hypothesis and argument: whatis the central research question?

Although disciplines will naturally differ in how they understand and/orpresent their research question, it is surely a sine qua non of higher degreeexamination that all theses must have one.

In the sciences the central question leading the research – and ofteninvolving a whole team of researchers – is usually clearly defined beforedoctoral work begins and the student’s ‘original contribution to knowledge’is understood more in terms of the experiments undertaken to solve it. Inthe humanities and social sciences, however, formulating a sharp andcoherent hypothesis is very much at the centre of the project’s claim tooriginality. It is also, by definition, one of the first things that the examinersshould be looking for in the course of their assessment.

Following the ‘rules’ of classical rhetoric which advise that topics shouldbe defined in ‘a single declarative sentence’ (Corbett and Connors 1999: 29),there is a good deal to be said for theses that can present their centralresearch question in a similarly succinct and simple way: indeed, for manysupervisors, a student’s ability to do so is taken as evidence that they are fully– or perhaps finally! – on top of their research. A thesis which depends upona title, rather than a question, to link all its discussions together is always hardwork for the reader/examiner who is then forced to deduce the candidate’s‘line’ on the topic for him- or herself. Sometimes the question is there –implicitly or explicitly – a few pages in, but on other occasions it nevermaterializes and the examiner is left deciding the extent to which this mat-ters. Does the thesis nevertheless ask, and answer, enough convincing con-stituent questions to forgo the need for a major, central one? Or does theabsence of a strong, central hypothesis point to a more fundamental weak-ness? Is this a candidate whose discussions/analyses intervene in debateswithout necessarily taking them forward?

How the limitations of a thesis without a central hypotheses are preciselyconstrued will vary across the disciplines, but it is surely a matter of concernto most academics one way or another. It is a concern that also takes usstraight to one of the most important, and also one of the most criticallyvulnerable, elements in any higher degree: the abstract.

As the candidates themselves should have been made acutely aware bytheir supervisors, the abstract is perhaps the most important page in thewhole thesis. It is not only the means by which the thesis will make itselfknown in the world; it is the set of expectations by which it will be judged.Although some abstracts are merely descriptive of the project in hand, thereis the expectation (in the humanities and social sciences at least) that this iswhere the central hypothesis should first be propounded – preferably in aclear and crystalline form. Indeed, an abstract without a hypothesis willinevitably ring warning bells for some examiners; it will make them wonderif this is a project which never moved beyond the ‘framework’ stage of


composition; or one that chases many different threads without ever prop-erly identifying the issue that unites them. It is acknowledged that the discip-lines will differ on exactly how much emphasis should be given to thehypothesis in the defining of a research project, but for many of us it remainsthe linchpin of its claim to originality and the acid test of the author’s graspof his or her material.

Beyond the abstract, where should we expect to find the central hypothesisto surface in the thesis? While the more zealous among us might argue ‘onevery page’, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that it should be visibleat every significant transition point (e.g. between chapters; as the argumenttakes a major step forward; as the argument goes off at a tangent). Moreover,all the scores of smaller questions which represent the ‘weft and the warp’ ofthe thesis should (ideally) demonstrate their connection to the bigger one.Finally, in the best of theses, the central research question will surely beimplicit in the conception, and sequence, of the chapters themselves.Sounds obvious? Perhaps – but those of us who have supervised and exam-ined extensively know all too well how many higher degrees there are outthere which remain unclear – even unto the end – on exactly what questionthey are asking.

Therefore, although a ‘thesis without a thesis’ will not necessarily ‘fail’, formany examiners the lack of a clear, central research question will constitute asignificant flaw or question mark that will have to be compensated for inother ways.

3.4 Evaluating fulfilment of ‘stated objectives’:how to recognize the achievement of goals

This is one of the assessment criteria that will obviously vary significantlyfrom discipline to discipline, but which is probably most in need of a sharpeye in the humanities and social sciences. Whereas the presentational formatof most science degrees makes the links between questions, experiments andresults very explicit, examiners of a humanities degree may be forced toreturn to an abstract and/or introduction repeatedly to see if the candidateis doing all that they promised to do.

A further complication here is that there is a stylistic dimension: somecandidates will have been trained to ‘signpost’ the progression of theirargument and/or the building of incremental evidence clearly. Others willnot. And, in this regard, it may also be deemed perfectly acceptable by someacademics for an argument to emerge casually, elliptically or even ‘surpris-ingly’. Indeed, at the more avant-garde end of most humanities subjects,academics – including doctoral candidates – might argue for the right topresent their work in an experimental way. In these instances, ‘the object-ives’ of the thesis may prove extremely hard to find, although one couldargue that even a more experimental piece of work has a duty to lay its cardson the table in the abstract. In some cases, however, the reader/examiner


will inevitably be obliged to identify the text’s implicit objectives him- or her-self (perhaps after an initial read-through) and thereafter assess the successwith which they have been met.

On no occasion, however, should ‘experimentation’ in presentation beconfused with the candidate’s failure to execute the objectives of the worksatisfactorily. Moreover, if some objectives fail to be met, it is good practice inmost disciplines for this to be acknowledged too. Indeed, reflexivity on thismatter is regarded by many examiners as a quality, rather than a defect, in ahigher degree.

3.5 Evaluating methodology: theoryand practice

Methodology means different things to different academic disciplines andthere are significant differences in the value placed upon it in the assessmentof higher degrees.

While for science subjects methodological innovation might constitute themajor claim of the thesis to ‘originality’, many academics working in thehumanities would be at a loss to know what exactly was meant by ‘method’ intheir particular discipline. Until recently, for example, it was common forEnglish literature scholars to claim that their subject was essentially ‘withouta method’: it might engage with different theories, for sure, but did notrequire a methodology as such. With the funding councils’ insistence onresearch methods training for all doctoral students, this attitude has beenforced to change, and many UK universities now run training programmesfor humanities students similar to those found in the sciences and socialsciences.

This does not mean that the distinction between ‘theory’ and ‘method’ is,as yet, very clearly attended to in humanities PhDs. The tendency now is forstudents to think of ‘research methods’ in terms of the practical and trans-ferable skills associated with their research (e.g. the use of information tech-nology) rather than to grasp which bits of their research activity constitute amethodological choice, and which bits a theoretical one. We still have a longway to go before these students and their supervisors fully grasp that theirdecision to write in the first or third person (for example) is a methodologicalchoice that will affect the outcome of their thesis every bit as much as theirchoice of theorist (Pearce 2003: 15–107). For many examiners of literature-based PhDs, the methodological discussion in a viva is likely to be limited tothe rationale for the choice of primary texts and/or the historical param-eters of the project, though we must hope and trust that this will change inthe years to come. In as much as methodological choices are – for all discip-lines – one of the most important aspects of student learning at higherdegree level, we should really expect the subject to be examined and forcandidate and examiner to have a frank and open discussion about whatworked, what didn’t work, and what changes had to be made. There follows a


checklist of some of the methodological issues that may feature in theassessment of a humanities thesis:

• Is the candidate aware of having made methodological as well astheoretical choices?

• What was the rationale for the candidate’s choice of texts?• Why did the candidate choose these historical parameters?• Is the candidate aware of his/her relationship to the primary sources?• How does the candidate use quotation/citation in the text?• Is the candidate aware of their own self-positioning with regard to their

research subject?• Why has the candidate elected to use the first/third person (and where)?• Were there ethical/emotional issues involved in the writing of the thesis?

It will be noted that several of these points are an attempt to discover thecandidate’s relationship to their ‘object of research’ and/or criticalsources. In other words, is the candidate aware of the power politicsinvolved in how we quote, or cite, other authors or critics (Pearce 2003:160–5)? Are they aware that that a humanities scholar, just as much as asocial science scholar, can exercise insensitive, or inappropriate, authorityover the text/author/subject they are researching? A highly educated, priv-ileged, middle-class person may position the texts/readers of popularromance in a highly condescending way, for example. Anyone, or anything,that is liable to being made into an ‘other’ in humanities research thusbecomes a methodological issue. And while in social science research (seebelow) the ‘ethical’ dimension of this is most visible in how researchersengage in ethnographic research (e.g. interviewing), humanities researchcan throw up equally sensitive text-based dilemmas (e.g. what is ourresponsibility towards private letters and diaries that were never intendedfor public consumption? Are we ‘authorized’ to work with them/publishthem or not?).

Needless to say, the social sciences have long been attuned to the crucialimportance of method in the production of higher degrees. Most institu-tions – following research council guidelines – now provide compulsory pro-grammes of research methods training, many with forms of assessmentattached. As a consequence, a rigorous theory and practice of method in thethesis itself is absolutely central to its success and examiners in these subjectsmay expect to give up much of the viva to discussing it. At the heart of theassessment there will be the question of whether the method chosen wasappropriate for the question(s) asked, as well as an evaluation of whether ornot the candidate was alert to the advantages and limitations of that particu-lar method in a wider context. In social science subjects, then, an appropri-ate and effective use of method will be seen to be inseparable from thesuccess (or not) of the thesis overall. The following list incorporates generalobservations with some of the key methodological issues explored byBeverley Skeggs and contributors in Feminist Cultural Theory: Process andProduction (1995):


• Why was the area of study chosen? What institutional, economic andsocioeconomic factors affected the choice?

• Why was this particular method/set of questions chosen?• Where have you seen this particular method in use elsewhere?• Why were other methods not chosen? Were they referred to and

challenged?• Has the candidate had to adapt the method to suit their own purposes?• How do the initial questions relate to the final product?• Was there an ethical/political dimension to the choice of this method?• In quantitative research, can the size of the sample be defended?• In qualitative research, to what extent did the candidate’s presence

impact on the outcome of the research?

In science disciplines, meanwhile, we see a similar range of questions butwith especial emphasis on the invention of new techniques and experiments:

• Why did the candidate choose this particular method/technique?• What new information does this method/technique give?• What is original about the method?• How could the method be improved?• What are the limitations of the method?

For all disciplines, then, it is clear that the candidate’s awareness of theimportance of method is absolutely crucial. Method is where ‘meaning’ ismade, and the more sensitive a researcher is to this fact, the better the thesisis likely to be.

3.6 Assessing originality

As discussed in Chapter 2, ‘originality’ is one of the key criteria by which aPhD (across all disciplines) is judged and which is used to distinguish it fromother, ‘lesser’ higher degrees such as the MA by research and the M.Phil(although, as we have seen, some institutions may make originality acondition of the latter).

What exactly might constitute originality is, however, open to wide inter-pretation and when Phillips and Pugh first published the following checklistthey caused thousands of doctoral students across the UK to breathe a col-lective sigh of relief.2 If ‘Originality’ with a capital ‘O’ was one of the moreunnerving demands associated with being a doctoral student, these ‘lesser’types of ‘originality’ seemed reassuringly manageable:

1 Setting down a major piece of new information in writing for thefirst time

2 Continuing a previously original piece of work3 Carrying out original work designed by your supervisor4 Providing a single original technique, observation, or result in an

otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research


5 Having many original ideas, methods and interpretations all per-formed by others under the direction of the postgraduate

6 Showing originality in testing somebody else’s idea7 Carrying out empirical work that hasn’t yet been done before8 Making a synthesis that hasn’t been made before9 Using already known material but with a new interpretation

10 Trying out something in this country that has previously only beendone in other countries

11 Taking a particular technique and applying it to a new area12 Bringing new evidence to bear on an old issue13 Being cross-disciplinary and using different methodologies14 Looking at areas that people in the discipline haven’t looked at before15 Adding to knowledge in a way that hasn’t previously been done before

(Phillips and Pugh 1994: 61–2)

This provocative ‘deconstruction’ of originality is certainly useful for aca-demics and funding councils struggling to come to grips with changingstandards and practices in the assessment of higher degrees, but it shouldcontinue to be viewed with caution by students and examiners alike.

The problem is that even though there is widespread ambiguity over howthe requirement for originality is interpreted, most disciplines retain(‘unofficial’) benchmark interpretations of the term and those who becometoo blasé about the definition could be in for a nasty shock in the examroom. (For example, for a historian, ‘originality’ might mean quite literally‘evidence of having worked with original sources’ and the lack of such ‘evi-dence’ may result in a failed thesis.) Just because, at a discursive level, youcould argue that this is a thoroughly ambiguous category doesn’t mean thatyour co-examiner will necessarily think the same. Furthermore, and follow-ing on from our discussions regarding methodology, it is clear that many ofthe (apparently) less demanding definitions of originality derive from sci-ence subjects. In humanities and (some) social science higher degrees, apremium is still placed on the student’s ability to formulate new and interest-ing questions. Indeed, some of us would argue that the ability to do this(rather than simply respond to the ideas of others) remains the true test ofsomeone aspiring to an academic career – even if it is no longer the baselinecriteria of a PhD.

In conclusion, it is vital to remember that while it may be up to eachindividual examiner to decide how they are going to understand and exactthe key criterion of ‘originality’ in a thesis, our fellow examiners may havevery different standards and expectations. This is clearly something to bearin mind when reading the thesis and writing the pre-viva report: should youhave concerns about this particular assessment criterion it may be safer to erron the side of caution until you have had a frank and open discussion withthe other examiners about what your collective expectations are.

It is also worth remembering that, as we ease into a more regulated higherdegree culture, the ‘expectations’ that used to pertain to our subject in terms


of ‘absolute originality’ might be traded for some of the more modest oneson the Phillips and Pugh list.

Originality and plagiarism

Please note that the compromising of ‘originality’ through plagiarism isdealt with in 3.8.

3.7 Assessing ‘knowledge of the field’:coverage vs. focus

Like ‘originality’ and ‘publishability’, ‘knowledge of the field’ is somethingthat PhD theses of all disciplines are expected to demonstrate, and exam-iners are expected to test and examine. Unlike the other two categories, it isalso a quality expected of M.Phils – and to a lesser extent MAs by research. Asindicated above, it is a ‘performance of scholarship’ that publishers in thehumanities and social sciences are eager to edit should the thesis be turnedinto a book. Displaying this sort of knowledge may thus be considered thesingle most defining feature of a higher degree thesis.

In the social sciences, especially, ‘knowledge of the field’ has becomeassociated with the ‘literature review which is, itself, a distinct phase of activ-ity in the production of higher degrees. Indeed, many of us who have exam-ined PhDs with weighty literature review chapters will have lamented the factthat the candidate did not return to this early work and perform some exci-sions (the literature review is usually written during the first year or 18months of research). Despite the fact that much of this early reading andreviewing is only tangentially relevant to the final thesis, it remains normalfor the full survey to be included, and examiners will – once again – differ onwhat they feel about this.

For some examiners, a hefty (and hopefully up to date) literature reviewwill be reassuring evidence that the candidate has, indeed, taken his or herscholarship seriously and put in the required hours in the library or on theinternet. It will also stand as evidence of his or her bibliographic and presen-tation skills. For others, however, a long, rambling literature review mighttrigger warning bells: to range so widely, did the candidate have a clear senseof his or her research question when he or she was undertaking the review?More to the point, does she or he have a clear sense of the question now?

For many of us, however, the essential requirements of a successful litera-ture review are: (a) its evaluation, as well as citation, of the field; and (b) itsattempt to relate the work(s) reviewed to the thesis itself, either directly orindirectly. A good review should, wherever possible, point out the differ-ences, or deficiencies, of the work in question as related to what thecandidate has been attempting in the thesis (though, ideally, not in tooconceited a way!).


The issue of ‘coverage’ vs. ‘selectivity’ is not dispensed with as easily as allthat, however. While a selective literature survey may be seen as a sign ofdiscrimination – of a candidate who is very confident of what, in the field, isrelevant to him or her – it does risk the danger of omitting key texts. More-over, spotting these gaps has traditionally been seen as one of the higherdegree examiner’s prime duties. Some may go as far as to suggest that no vivais complete without the ‘What about . . .’ question (see 4.13), and – sad to say– a good many examiners seem to take perverse pleasure in asking it.

There is clearly little I can do in this book to intervene in this ‘ancientritual’, except to appeal to examiners’ professionalism. If a key work really ismissing from the candidate’s survey of the field, then they must, indeed, betold. The invocation of minor omissions virtually for the sake of it is not,however, to be encouraged (even though you are likely to see your fellowexaminers succumb to the temptation time and time again). For some exam-iners, reading the thesis would seem to be fuelled by this sort of mission: aquest to discover not what has been said, but what has not.

It should also be noted, finally, that different disciplines have differentconventions when it comes to the literature review per se. First of all, not allareas present their knowledge of the field so schematically, and examinersmay be expected to trawl widely, and elliptically, for the evidence. In human-ities subjects, for example, engagement with other theorists and critics tendsto be part of the ‘fabric’ of the thesis, even though there is still likely to besome sort of introduction where a preliminary overview takes place. Forthese subjects, too, a high value is placed on a bibliography that is not simplya summary of references, but evidence of comprehensive scholarship. (Thisis why it is so important for supervisors to remind students to put all the textsthey have consulted in the bibliography, and not just the ones cited.) Inscience subjects, meanwhile, the literature is absolutely fundamental to thecredibility of the thesis, and will have taken up a large part of the candidate’sfirst year. There may also be greater expectations than in humanities/socialscience subjects about it being comprehensively up-to-date – although thespeed with which new science gets published (especially in the era of theinternet) means that it will be impossible for the very latest developments tobe included. It should be noted, too, that across all faculties – but perhaps inscience especially – some of the onus of ‘coverage’ falls on the supervisorand/or research team; any glaring gaps in the survey of past research shouldhave been pointed out to the student, even though they must take finalresponsibility for ensuring that this aspect of the thesis is as watertight aspossible.

3.8 Plagiarism: what to do if you suspect it

As all colleagues working in higher education will be aware, plagiarism is oneof the greatest scourges of our times. While the potential for plagiarism andother forms of malpractice has always been endemic to academia (and not


only among students!), the electronic age has given rise to unprecedentedlevels of abuse. Needless to say, the possibility of downloading so muchmaterial from both public and commercial internet sites throughout theworld has also changed the form plagiarism now takes. Where once studentsmight have contented themselves with copying a few sentences or para-graphs from a relevant book or journal article, they are now equally likely todownload an entire text (especially if it is thought to be from an obscuresource that would be difficult to trace). This is an increasingly commonpractice among undergraduate students and it would be naïve to think that itdoes not also go on at postgraduate level.

Most discussions of plagiarism in academia revolve around problems of‘definition’ and attempt to enumerate the subtle and various forms thecrime may take. However, in the context of higher degree examining, it is aswell to begin with the worst-case scenario of wholesale ‘theft’ for the veryreason that – in pieces of writing of 5000 words or more – this is often themore difficult plagiarism to detect. This is because it is usually changes inthe tone/style of a piece that alert us to ‘foreign’ intrusions, and essays,chapters or dissertations that are ‘lifted’ entire will necessarily avoid this.

While it is, of course, unlikely that whole PhDs or M.Phils have been stolenin this way, it is quite possible that individual chapters might have been, and– given the fact that higher degree theses often comprise very different sortsof chapter (i.e. theoretical background, methodology, textual analysis) – thestylistic discrepancy may well be disguised. We will all have had momentswhen, in reading a student’s essay or dissertation, the writing suddenly seemsto ‘take off’, bearing little resemblance to that which precedes or follows it.When this happens during the reading of an M.Phil or PhD, some cause forsuspicion may well be in order.

Apart from these supposed ‘worst-case’ scenarios, plagiarism in higherdegrees may include many smaller – but no less serious – instances of abuse.Here is a checklist of some of the more common ones:

• The wholesale ‘lifting’ of material, published or unpublished, from un-acknowledged sources.

• The partial lifting/copying of material, published or unpublished, fromunacknowledged sources.

• The paraphrasing of material, published or unpublished, from unacknow-ledged sources.

• ‘Plagiarism of ideas’ (i.e. when a concept/thesis/argument that has comefrom another source is unacknowledged).

• The unattributed deployment of methodologies and experiments.• The fabrication of results and conclusions.• Plagiarism that has occurred in published works that have been submitted

for the award of a PhD by publication.

All of these instances of malpractice are, of course, doubly serious in thosequalifications – namely the PhD (and, to a lesser extent the M.Phil byresearch) – which place such an emphasis on ‘originality’. This is also where


the ‘plagiarism of ideas’ has a particular – if complex – resonance. Whileundergraduate and even MA students may not be expected (a) to work withideas that are wholly new and/or original or (b) to know ‘the field’ so com-prehensively that they can be certain that no one had got there before them,the same cannot be said for doctoral candidates. As we have already noted,both ‘originality’ and ‘knowledge of the field’ are expected to be demon-strably present. Therefore, although a candidate may genuinely believe that acertain ‘idea’ is wholly original (i.e. they got to it independently withoutreference to any other source), failure to comprehensively check that no oneelse has come to the same hypothesis or conclusion may lead to doubt orsuspicion on behalf of the examiners. The hard fact here as far as the candi-date is concerned is that most regulations have rejected the notion of plagiar-ism as the intention to deceive (on the grounds that it is an ‘intention’ that isoften impossible to prove) and focus, instead, on absent, or inadequate,acknowledgement or referencing.3 Therefore, while candidates may appearto be let off lightly in one respect (i.e. no one is able to accuse them of adeliberate misdemeanour), their responsibility to check out cognate as wellas actual sources is intense. This is especially true of practices in science andsocial science where the widespread use of the ‘Harvard’ (author-date) refer-encing system assumes that colleagues will cite all those texts that have somebearing on the idea/argument they are pursuing, even though they may nothave contributed directly to the author’s own thought production.

As an examiner of a higher degree, plagiarism – large or small, flagrant orsubtle – is obviously something you hope you will never come across. If youdo suspect malpractice you are, however, bound to mention it in your pre-viva report (many institutions now have guidelines on this) and your doubtsshould then be shared with your fellow examiner(s) at the earliest possibleopportunity. If both of you share these doubts or suspicions you are thenadvised to contact the Postgraduate Registry at the earliest possibleopportunity – and most certainly before the viva.

Moreover, while one aspect of the viva has traditionally been to ‘authenti-cate’ the thesis by testing that the work is the student’s own, most cases areidentified – and dealt with – during the written assessment. Indeed, someinstitutions are now demanding that electronic versions of the thesis – ondisc or CD-ROM – be presented alongside the hard copy in order that mal-practice may be checked out more easily. A number of increasingly sophisti-cated plagiarism software packages now exist to analyse text that may beconsidered in any way suspicious.

3.9 Writing the pre-viva report: guidelinesand conventions

Some universities will offer very specific instructions on what should beincluded in the pre-viva report. At Lancaster, for example, examiners areinvited to consider the following:


Lancaster University

Examiners may wish to include comments on:

• Content of thesis• Summary and analysis of the student’s argument• Structure/coherence• Presentation• Originality of work and contribution to knowledge• Publishability of work

Source: Lancaster University’s ‘Examiner’s pre-viva report form’

At Oxford, meanwhile, where there is no pre-viva report but, instead, adetailed joint report submitted by both examiners after the viva, the instruc-tions are even more specific:

University of Oxford: form and content of the examiners’ joint report

The joint report should be sufficiently detailed to enable members ofthe relevant graduate studies committee and faculty board to assess thescope and significance of the thesis and to appreciate its strengths andweaknesses. It should, as far as possible, be expressed in terms that areintelligible to those who are not specialists in the particular field of thethesis. Hence the joint report should include, preferably near thebeginning, a statement of what the thesis purports to do, and an accountof what it actually covers. Evaluative comments should be as full as pos-sible and should include an indication of the strengths as well as thelimitations, weaknesses and lacunae. The candidate’s performance inthe oral examination should receive comment. Candidates’ explan-ations for any deficiencies in the thesis should receive appropriatemention.

Sources: University of Oxford (2001)

Apart from directing the examiner towards the key criteria for assessment,some institutions, as is the case with Oxford, will ask the examiners to beginby providing a summary of the thesis and its contents. This is no mean task –especially if the thesis itself is lacking in focus – but is clearly regarded as‘good practice’: many examiners begin their reports with a paragraph of thiskind even if they have not been asked to do so. (Indeed, the ease and elo-quence with which some examiners effect this sort of summary is sometimesin revealing contrast to the efforts of the candidates themselves!)

There is an assumption, across most disciplines, that the pre-viva reportshould be as full as possible. Although the university might supply you with aform with no more than a half-page sheet for the report, most examiners willavail themselves of additional pages. While it would be impossible to general-ize (especially across disciplines), most pre-viva reports tend to be between1000 and 2000 words long (excluding the list of minor corrections/typoswhich is usually held, and submitted, on a separate sheet).

In terms of content, the report should combine the descriptive with the


evaluative. The descriptive element is important because this is a documentthat is likely to be read, and assessed, by personnel who will not have read thethesis itself. In the case of Oxford and Cambridge, this will include membersof the Graduate Studies Committee and Faculty Board, whilst other uni-versities usually appoint a senior administrator in their Graduate School toread, and digest, all reports as they come in.

This alerts us immediately to what is probably the major challenge inwriting these reports – their ‘mixed’ audience. Apart from this ‘administra-tive’ (and, by definition, non-specialist) reader your report will generally beread by the candidate’s supervisor(s), the director of postgraduate studiesand, very often, the head of department. More contentiously, it might also beread by (a) your fellow examiner(s); and (b) the candidate.

With respect to the former, many institutions will advise – or imply – thatexaminers should not share their pre-viva reports at all. For many of us,however, the temptation is simply too great. We perceive the exchange ofthese reports as the quickest and surest way of communicating our thoughtsto the other examiner and we are also – if the truth be known – eager to‘show off’ the fruits of our own labour! The pre-viva report is often some-thing of a virtuoso piece of writing in its own right and we may well have asneaking desire for the other examiner to be impressed (especially if they area major authority in the field).

Yet even as we are seeking to impress the other examiner(s) with our expert-ise and perceptiveness, so do we also have to allow for the fact that the candi-dates might themselves see the report at a later date. Whether this happens ornot is another grey area of higher degree examination, but the Data Protec-tion Act of 1998 most certainly entitles candidates to see the report (Tinklerand Jackson 2004: 213).4 While most institutions offer the strict instructionthat neither supervisor nor candidate (nor other examiner(s)) should seethe report before the viva, it is normally a matter of discretion whetherexaminers/supervisors see fit to copy it to the candidate after the event.

On some occasions, examiners will issue explicit instructions that they do/do not wish the candidate to see the report as it stands; otherwise, it isnormally up to the supervisor to decide. In the case of a highly negativereport, it is clearly preferable for the supervisor to offer a ‘digest’ of thereport rather than to copy it whole. (This was, indeed, considered ‘bestpractice’ in many departments before the Date Protection Act.) The fact ofthe matter is that most pre-viva reports are written with the sort of criticaledge that candidates are unlikely to have come across before (unless theyhave already entered the highly competitive world of journal publication)and examiners should, ideally, be aware of this.

The point here, surely, is that (no matter how critical they are of thethesis) examiners should avoid gratuitous insult and in particular resist seek-ing to impress the other examiner(s) no matter how illustrious, they are. Theperson your report is serving, after all, is the candidate, regardless of whetherthe text is addressed to him or her.

Having said all this, it is obviously crucial that the examiner is as frank as


possible about the merits of the thesis and its future publishability (or not).In this last regard, it is usual for the examiner(s) to cast their reports prospect-ively – i.e., they should enumerate the limits of the thesis as it stands againstwhat could be done in the future to improve it and prepare it for publica-tion. This may range from the macro- to the microcosmic: from suggestionsof how to focus the hypothesis more and/or limit the project’s parameters,to points of style and address. Different disciplines will also have differentways of making this sort of assessment, though the prognostic approach iscommon. It is also the obvious means by which you can make even a highlycritical report read as positively as possible.

In terms of the finite ‘coverage’ of the report, it is less easy to advise acrossthe disciplines (though you are reminded, once again, of the highly detailedinstructions offered by some institutions: see 2.6 and the examples citedabove). It remains important, however, that examiners address the ‘big pic-ture’ at some point in their reports; there is nothing more dispiriting than areport which concentrates on minor quibbles and corrections at the expenseof engaging with the key conceptual points. While it is true that some thesesare so dogged by minor errors or inaccuracies that it undermines the successof the project (to the point where it may well need to be referred) its centralargument still needs to be attended to. At very least, the candidate deservesto know whether or not their thesis is worth correcting.

Most pre-viva reports conclude with a comment on the presentation of thethesis. The examiner will pass judgement on whether it is generally ‘clean’ orotherwise, and draw attention to any pervasive errors or omissions that needcorrection. As we have already noted, however, it is more usual for the list oftypos to be collected on a separate sheet of paper and handed to the candi-date at the end of the viva (most institutions will also require copies of thislist to be submitted with the post-viva report).

Can I mark minor corrections/typos on the typescript itself?

Many colleagues still consider it good practice not to ‘mark’ the thesisitself: corrections should, instead, be listed with a page and line numberlocation (e.g. ‘para 2, l.7(up)’). This is very time-consuming for theseswhere there are literally hundreds of corrections, however, and examin-ers may choose to override the ‘good practice’ and mark up the text (inpencil) in these instances. While there is clear common sense in thisattempt to reduce unnecessary labour, examiners should be warned thatsuch expediency is liable to be frowned upon in more ‘traditional’institutions. Be prepared for your fellow examiner to tender his or herbeautifully presented list of typos at the end of the viva with a haughtylook!

There is no question that writing the pre-viva report is hard work. Not onlydoes the examiner have to match his or her impression of the thesis with a


weighty list of assessment criteria, but she or he also has to remain mindful ofthe fact that many different categories of person – including the candidate –may end up reading it. At the back of their minds, most examiners are alsoconscious of their own status and reputation. Having been called in as the‘world expert’ on X, most of us feel compelled to ‘make visible’ our know-ledge and insight; to confirm our own ‘professional standing’ (especially infront of our fellow examiners). For all these reasons, many examiners’reports are extremely fine pieces of writing – which is why it can be extremelyhelpful and encouraging for candidates to see them.


4Preparing for the viva

This chapter focuses on one of the greyest areas in the whole higher degreeexamining process: namely, who does what – and when – in the run-up tothe viva.

Experience suggests that few departments/institutions in the UK haveclear instructions on how examiners are supposed to make contact with eachother and share their thoughts before the viva – although it is obvious that atsome point they must!

The chapter also reviews the different forms the viva itself might take, andsuggests actions that the examiners may initiate if they anticipate a problem.

4.1 Making contact with the otherexaminer(s): when and how?

As was indicated in the previous chapter, it is not a good idea to try and makecontact with the other examiner(s) before you have all written your pre-vivareports: it is simply too easy for one examiner to be influenced by another.

Assuming that preliminary reports have been filed (or, at the very least,written) before first contact is made, examiners should ideally be in touchwith one another at least one week before the viva. This will give them theopportunity to identify any truly major problems that might stop the vivagoing ahead or, more positively, it will give them plenty of time to start explor-ing what they wish to focus on in the viva given the strengths and weaknessesof the work in question. They can also discover whether or not their pre-liminary recommendations concur and hence determine the function of theviva (i.e. will it be to confirm an impression or to determine an outcome?).

This initial contact is usually made via telephone or email (though exam-iners should be alert to the security problems and embarrassments surround-ing the latter) and the finer details of the viva (e.g. deciding on particularquestions and their order) left for the pre-viva meeting on the day of theexam.

The contact details of your co-examiner(s) are sometimes included in thepaperwork attached to your letter of appointment; if they are not you shouldapproach either the director of postgraduate studies in the candidate’sdepartment or someone in the Postgraduate Registry. Most academics’ con-tact details are, of course, also available via the web – though this might notinclude that crucial home number that you have been advised to call for thisparticular purpose.

You should also be aware that it is normally the internal examiner whotakes responsibility for making initial contact at this point in the process,although this is frequently left to the external. What this item of unwrittenetiquette points to is that – in the absence of a proactive director ofpostgraduate studies or viva chair – it is the internal examiner whobecomes, in effect, the ‘host’ of the examination. The fact that implicit in‘hosting’ is a certain deference to one’s guest also exposes the problem-atic structural inequality between internal and external examiners that willbe dealt with in more detail in the next chapter. Readers are alsoreminded that the BPS Guidelines strongly advise that the person shouldnot be the internal examiner, although this is clearly the most commonpractice in the UK at the present time (see also Tinkler and Jackson2004: 84).

4.2 Etiquette, regulations and cautions

It is by no means standard practice for examiners to exchange their pre-vivareports verbatim, but many do as the quickest way of establishing if there areareas of common agreement and consent – or not.

While different institutions will necessarily have different guidelines onthis (with many of them remaining silent), the general consensus is thatthere is no harm in the practice once a copy of the report has been submitted to thePostgraduate Registry. If the actual reports are not exchanged, the examinerswill at some point have to be frank and open with one another about theiropinions, and the written report is certainly the quicker and more effectiveway of sharing the finer details. Email makes it especially easy for this sort ofexchange to take place, possibly in advance of a telephone discussion or ameeting.

Examiners should also be advised that although the Data Protection Actmeans that the candidate will ultimately have the right to see the report (see3.9), it most certainly should not be shared with either the candidate or theirsupervisor before the viva. Indeed, inasmuch as the report often indicateswhat sorts of questions should be asked in the viva, advance exposure to itscontents are tantamount to an undergraduate student seeing his or herexam paper in advance!


4.3 Protecting the interests of the studentbefore the viva

The examiners’ conscious decision not to confer until the pre-viva reportshave been submitted is clearly the most important way in which the candi-date’s interests can be protected in advance of the viva. This is the onlymeans by which the candidate can be guaranteed a genuinely independentsecond (or second and third) opinion of their work that can be referred toshould the later stages of the examination process prove divisive.

It is also important, moreover, that examiners, supervisors and postgradu-ate directors avoid word of mouth verdicts being fed back to the candidate inadvance of the viva. While it might be very tempting for a supervisor (whohas been in touch with the examiner) to offer reassurance to their student inadvance of the exam, it is not generally a good idea. Even if the impressionbeing conveyed from party to party appears to be extremely positive, it isnever wise to send candidates into a viva with a false sense of security. As hasbeen indicated on several occasions in this book, a successful outcome isoften preceded by a very tough examination and ‘giving the nod’ to yourstudent is not the best way of preparing them for any, and every, eventualitythat might befall them.

The fact that this sort of ‘advance notification’ does, nevertheless, remaina major temptation for many supervisors (especially those with anxious can-didates) is a further reason why examiners should confer only with oneanother if at all possible: an obvious piece of advice, perhaps, until you areconfronted with a thesis ‘you just have to tell’ one of your colleagues about.Be careful! Anecdotal evidence suggests that this sort of news travels quicklyand, most significantly, gets back to the student’s supervisor in no time.

4.4 Arriving at a provisional recommendationpre-viva

Some institutions may require you to arrive at a personal ‘provisional rec-ommendation’ at the time you file your pre-viva report – possibly in the formof a set of tick boxes (this is certainly the practice at Sheffield Hallam Uni-versity, for instance). However, in those cases where you are not required tocommit a provisional recommendation to paper, you will still have to hazarda prognosis. Even if your conclusion is that the thesis is extremely borderlinethis, in itself, is a verdict of sorts and one that you will need to share with yourfellow examiner. Once you have thrashed out your key opinions, concernsand – perhaps – differences, you should have a good idea of what you expectthe post-viva result to be. The outstandingly original, meticulously presentedthesis may already have earned its place in the ‘pass with no/minor correc-tions’ category; others will look as though they are heading for the three-, six-or twelve-month ‘correction’ category. It is clearly only by anticipating this

Preparing for the viva 67

final outcome that the examiners can really begin to focus on the purpose ofthe viva: what do you need the candidate to prove to reassure you that theyare category (a) and not category (b), for example? Indeed, evidence of theability to understand key points of criticism and to make the necessarychanges in the time available are among the most crucial factors beingassessed in many vivas.

In The Doctoral Examination Process (2004) Tinkler and Jackson also arguethat this provisional assessment of the thesis determines the whole nature/function of the viva that follows. In the case of a ‘good thesis’, for example,the function is generally limited to ‘authentication’, clarification and thedevelopment of ideas for publication, whereas in borderline cases the viva isused both to authenticate and:

• decide whether the candidate has done sufficient research of anappropriate standard to produce a thesis for the award of PhD;

• decide whether the candidate understands and can reflect critically ontheir research, and the broader context, in ways that are appropriate atPhD level;

• explore ways in which the thesis can be raised to PhD standard.(Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 181)

Such a checklist is certainly a useful reminder of the extent to which yourpre-viva recommendations will impact upon the viva itself and furtherexplains why the latter is such an unpredictable event for candidate andexaminer alike.

4.5 What if your provisional recommendationis a ‘fail’?

Very occasionally you may have the misfortune of being asked to examine athesis which, upon reading, is very clearly not up to the mark. It will beremembered, however (see 2.7) that as far as the final recommendationsattached to PhDs are concerned, a ‘fail’ can include the possibility of resub-mission (‘a [full] referral’, usually bearing a twelve-month resubmissiondate), a downgrading to an M.Phil or an MA as well as an ‘outright fail’. Ideal with this last category in 4.7, but am here obliged to remind you thateven very weak theses have a ‘right’ to examination once they have beensubmitted. Indeed, as previously noted, one the few universals in doctoralexamination is that no thesis can be failed without a viva.

For this reason, and assuming that the thesis in question is not in the‘outright fail’ category, the examiners would be advised by most Postgradu-ate Registries to proceed as normal. Even if your ‘provisional recommenda-tion’ is that a PhD be commuted to M.Phil, it should be remembered thatone of the most important functions of the viva is to permit candidates toacquit themselves, and their work, better than they have in their written


submission. Inasmuch as the thesis is only one part of what is being assessed,an excellent viva performance may well induce examiners to change a pro-visional recommendation of ‘commute to M.Phil’ to a referral. The vivamight have revealed an able student whose thesis has – by whatever manneror means – become misdirected but which could, with additional researchand/or restructuring, be successfully resubmitted.

Keeping this possibility in mind is very important for examiners presentedwith what, at first sight, is a seriously weak or embarrassing piece of work.While you might wish to run a mile there and then, remember that it is yourduty to give both the thesis and the candidate the benefit of the doubt byproceeding with the viva, unless the case seems truly hopeless (see 4.7).

4.6 What happens when theexaminers disagree?

Not surprisingly, examiners do not always come to the same conclusions intheir pre-viva reports. Indeed, on some occasions they will arrive at suchradically different verdicts on the quality of the thesis, and what it has or hasnot achieved, that one might expect it to pass with minor corrections, andthe other(s) deem it a certain referral. What happens in these cases?

If the normal protocol (discussed above) has been observed, the differ-ences between the two or more examiners should not emerge until bothhave filed their pre-viva reports. Indeed, the first person to observe that thereis a significant difference of opinion concerning the quality of the thesis isoften the person at the Postgraduate Registry responsible for checking thereports when they come in. This is usually a senior official such as the Sec-retary to the Graduate School Committee, who is entrusted with making apreliminary assessment of the reports in anticipation of just these sorts ofproblems.

Should a serious discrepancy of views be spotted, it is normal for thisofficer to contact both examiners individually and sound them out on theirpositions some more. The aim of this mediation is normally to encourage theexaminers to, at least, proceed with the viva, but – in the more extreme cases– some institutions may agree to appoint an additional external examiner atthis point. Such a contingency will inevitably mean that the viva has to bepostponed until the new examiner has had the chance to read and assess thethesis and the candidate, supervisor and chair will also need to be informedof the delay.

Painful and messy as these rearrangements are, it is clearly unwise to allowa viva to proceed in cases where the examiners are quite fundamentally indisagreement. Minor differences of opinion are to be expected (and exam-iners are often divided, before the viva, about what category of pass/fail theyexpect to be awarded), but differences which appear to reside in the exam-iners’ contrasting opinions/value systems rather than in the candidate’sown work should be directly confronted by the institution in the manner


suggested here. The guidelines for Sheffield Hallam University state firmlythat: ‘The examiners should ensure that any conflict of opinion that mayarise between them during the examination should, if possible, be resolvedso that a joint recommendation can be reached and fed back to the candi-date’ (Sheffield Hallam University 2002). In other words, it is extremelyunfair on the candidate to undertake a viva when you and your fellow exam-iner(s) have very different views on the research and what has, or has not,been achieved.

Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where you strongly disagreewith the provisional verdict of your fellow examiner(s) before the viva and noone at the institution for which you are examining has apparently spottedthe dispute, it is wise to take the issue to the Registry yourself. Even if the vivadoes go ahead, at least you will have registered the seriousness of the prob-lem and alerted the institution to the fact that another examiner may needto be brought in.

New or inexperienced examiners should also be alert to the fact that this isanother of those moments in the examining process where domination oroutright bullying may occur (see 1.8). Once your own verdict/opinion ismade known to the other examiner(s) they may very forcibly try and per-suade you to agree to their (very different) point of view. If a pre-viva reporthas already been submitted (and this is why this piece of protocol is soimportant) then there will be a limit to how far you can have your opinionchanged; if it has is not, you might find it very hard to withstand the pressureto ‘modify’ your views. Once again, do not be afraid to go straight to thePostgraduate Registry in these cases. Remember that it is the candidate’swork and reputation that is on the line here and not your own.

Needless to say, a difference of opinion between examiners at this stage inthe process is much more of a problem if there are only the two examiners.If, for whatever reason, there is already an additional internal/external, a‘balance of opinion’ can be registered more easily – even though it may stillrequire the appointment of an further examiner if the difference is notresolved after the viva. (Readers may also be interested to learn that SheffieldHallam University has a special form for disagreement between examiners,which at least serves to inform them that it is both possible and permissable.)

4.7 Cancelling or deferring the viva

There are occasions on which it is acceptable for a viva to be cancelled ordeferred. The obvious one is the illness of any of the parties involved (withthe exception of the chair, who may be replaced). It has also been known forPostgraduate Registries to agree to the cancellation of the viva if both exam-iners are unanimous that there is no point in proceeding. If the quality ofthe work is so weak as to seriously contravene the standards associated witha higher degree this might, indeed, be the most sensible course of action.In these circumstances the thesis is normally discreetly returned to the


supervisor with the instruction that it should only be resubmitted – if it is tobe resubmitted – once substantial improvements have been made. This is, ofcourse, allowing the candidate a second chance (providing he or she is stillwithin the ‘absolute registration’ time limit of the degree), but with the trulyhopeless cases there is little chance of a revised article ever materializing. It isalso worth remembering that the BPS Guidelines (2000) (see 1.3) endorsethis last course of action as the most sensible.

Sheffield Hallam University, meanwhile, has written this option into theirofficial guidelines:

Sheffield Hallam University: R14.8 dispensing with the oral examination

Where the examiners are of the opinion that the thesis is so unsatisfac-tory that no useful purpose would be served by conducting an oralexamination, they may recommend that the Research Degrees Sub-Committee dispense with the oral examination and refer the thesis forfurther work. Where the examiners are not in agreement, the ResearchDegrees Sub-Committee may:

(a) accept a majority decision (provided the majority recommendationincludes at least one external examiner); or

(b) accept the recommendation of the external examiner. Wherethe oral examination is dispensed with the examiners must providethe Research Degrees Sub-Committee with one agreed statement ofwritten guidance for the candidate concerning the deficienciesof the thesis, which should be sufficiently detailed to guide remedialwork. The examiners may not recommend that a candidate fail out-right without holding an oral exaination or alternative examination.

Source: Sheffield Hallam University (2002)

The viva deferral option may also be more benignly, and more positively,invoked in cases where there is a simple presentation issue: if a candidate hasseriously ignored the university regulations on layout and presentation, forexample, or if some crucial part of the thesis (e.g. the bibliography, theabstract) has not been included.

Vivas should only ever be postponed or cancelled in these mostexceptional circumstances. If the thesis is presented in a form that allowssome sort of decision – however harsh – to be made, it is better goingahead so that changes and corrections can be dealt with under the officialresubmission criteria.

4.8 Preparing questions for the viva

While the questions to be asked at the viva are often not discussed or formal-ized by the examiners until they meet on the day of the viva, I have chosen todeal with them here. This is because examiners often experience a momentof panic immediately preceding the viva – frequently in some anonymous


hotel room the night before the event – when they think they have not donethis part of their job adequately, and start drawing up rather desperate listsbased on their reading of several weeks ago.

New or inexperienced examiners should take comfort from the fact thatthis sort of panic can beset even those more practised in the trade and that,in most instances, the cue for your questions can be taken from your pre-vivareport. While jotting down suggestions for questions in your preliminarynotes on the thesis is perhaps the best way of ensuring that all the crucialparticularities are dealt with, the pre-viva report should remind you of all thereally big issues which need to be addressed on the day.

This is also the moment to recall that – although largely unscripted ininstitutional guidelines – higher degrees in the UK have, by and large,evolved their own generic form of assessment and questioning. Indeed, thecategories of assessment that we invoked in Chapter 3 to illustrate what youshould be looking for when you first read the thesis can usefully beredeployed here to structure your questioning: theory and method, hypoth-esis and argument, and knowledge of the field are all items requiring oral aswell as written assessment and to which you should now return to plan yourquestioning. No matter how many ‘particular’ questions you wish to ask ofyour candidate, it is worthwhile remembering that it is the whole higherdegree process that is being assessed. Using the following sub-categories ofquestioning may help you towards this.

4.9 Opening questions

There is a convention – though it is by no means universal – that the openingquestion of the viva should be ‘general’, ‘open’, ‘exploratory’ and designedprimarily to put the candidate at their ease. Most typically it is along the linesof ‘Can you tell us a bit about how you first got interested in this subject?’ or(a bit more challenging) ‘Can you tell us how your original idea for the thesiswas transformed as the research progressed?’. Such questions, althoughostensibly open and non-threatening, nevertheless go to the very heart of acandidate’s claim to ‘original thought’ and (in humanities and social sciencesubjects especially) will test his or her capacity for hypothesizing. Aswas noted in Chapter 3, there is far less emphasis on the originality ofthe ‘research question’ per se in many science subjects (where candidatesundertake their PhD as part of a team), but a similarly broad and inductivequestion could be asked about how (for example) the candidate’s previousinterests and training attracted him or her to this particular topic.

The best answers to these opening questions, meanwhile, tend to be thosewhere the candidate is able to be open and reflexive in his or her response.Those who are able to reflect upon their research as a journey or explorationthat has involved disruption, disappointment, cul-de-sacs and changes ofdirection as well as progress are usually those who have come to the mostmature and realistic assessment of what their project has, and has not,


achieved (see also Murray 2003a: 96–7; Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 191–2).While it is obviously not desirable for a candidate to ramble on endlessly inresponse to this question, a full and thoughtful answer may usually be takenas a sign of intellectual depth. By the same token, a trite or dismissive answeris bound to leave the examiners wondering about the candidate’s ‘owner-ship’ of the hypothesis (did they really devise and revise it all by themselves?)and the quality of their all-round learning experience.

Not all examiners feel inclined to give their candidates such an easy‘starter’ question, however; some see the ‘theory’ or ‘methodology’ question(see 4.10) as the obvious place to start. Others will launch straight into aquestion about the perceived ‘weakest link’ in the thesis. While in someinstances it is, admittedly, difficult to formulate any question which doestouch upon a major problem, I would certainly advise examiners againstbeing too obviously hostile or adversarial in their opening question (seeMurray 2003a: 118–20 on ‘dealing with hostility’). Not only is such anapproach likely to send a weak or nervous candidate into a catatonic state,but it could be argued that a question that invites such a candidate todescribe the genesis and evolution of the project could also be crucial inunderstanding what has gone wrong (and this might include, of course, aproblem with supervision).

4.10 Questions about theory and method

It is not unknown for examiners to begin the viva with questions abouttheory and method, presumably for the reason that these are regarded as theprinciples in some way underpinning the thesis as a whole. In every discip-line, these are the questions where there will inevitably be the potential fordissent; the choices the candidate has made under these headings are unlikelyto be the same as the examiners would have made, and it is an acceptedconvention of the viva that the candidate must therefore be prepared todefend his or her choice. Inasmuch as choice always favours X in favour of Y,questions about the choice of theory and/or method can therefore beamong the meanest: ‘You chose to work with Freud rather than Lacan – why?’The fact that most research projects could be approached effectively, if withdifferent results, using many other theories and methods makes this a par-ticularly terrifying category of question for the candidate to prepare for and Iam aware of many poor candidates who have come out of vivas declaring: ‘Hejust went on and on about X and why I hadn’t used his work/that approach.’

Considering this category of question from the examiners’ point of view, Iwould recommend that it be used symptomatically rather than exhaustively.In other words, there seems little point in berating candidates with the fullrange of alternative theories and methods they might have applied; how theyrespond to one, significant omission will usually be enough to ascertain howwell they can defend the method/approach they have chosen. This is assum-ing, of course, that the choice is not deemed to be wildly eccentric or


inappropriate: if it is, then it is clearly up to the examiners to explain whyand see, when presented with this evidence, how the candidate responds.

This last point also reminds us of one of the most important purposes ofquestioning in the viva – namely, to test how open and responsive a candi-date is to suggestions for change and improvement. This is clearly extremelyimportant with respect to theses which are liable to major corrections and/or referral (the examiners need to be reassured that the candidate hasunderstood their objections and is capable of making the necessarychanges), but such willingness to take on board others’ ideas is to be prizedin all candidates.

Returning to questions on theory and method, in particular, I wouldremind readers that these concepts mean very different things in differentdisciplines (see 3.5) and, beyond the obvious issues of the relevance/appropriateness of various approaches, will inevitably go off in different dir-ections. In most subject areas, however, the synergy between hypothesis, the-ory and method is absolutely central to the thesis’s success. As suggestedearlier (see 3.3) many doctoral students in humanities and social sciencesubjects secure their ‘framework’ before they have settled upon theirhypothesis, but – in the best theses – the two are profoundly implicated. Acandidate who has changed or developed his or her method to account for ashift in the research question is to be commended; as is one who hasreformulated his or her hypothesis in response to the ‘results’ yielded by aparticular theory or approach. In the social sciences, for example, there is awidespread tendency for a large empirical research project to scale downand become indicative/qualitative once researchers discover that statisticalevidence is the least interesting aspect of their data. In such an instance, theoriginal method may be preserved but redirected towards a significantlydifferent research objective.

With respect to what is actually meant by ‘theory’ and ‘method’ for thedifferent disciplines I would refer readers back to 3.5 and remind human-ities examiners that questions on method are as germane for their candi-dates as those in the sciences and social sciences; it is just that the wide rangeof choices humanities researchers make at the level of method have beenobscured, until recently, by a refusal to address their importance.

4.11 Questions about hypothesis and argument

An opening question along the lines suggested in 4.9 is certainly one of thebest ways to test the candidate’s grasp of their hypothesis and its evolution.Other, more direct, approaches include:

• Asking the candidate to sum up their research in a couple of sentences(this is a common opening question in European and some North Amer-ican vivas, though here candidates might also be expected to expand insome detail).


• Formulating what you believe to be the central thesis in your own wordsand asking the candidate if this is correct (this is a useful, if not necessary,tactic in the weaker theses where the central research question is far fromclear).

• Turning to the point in the abstract or introduction where the thesis isfirst outlined and asking the candidate to expand.

If you are more concerned with how an argument is pursued, or sustained,in the thesis, it is advisable that you point explicitly to sections of the thesiswhere the discussion appears to go astray and ask the candidate what theybelieved was happening. This is the moment in the viva when the examinerturns faux naïve and asks the dreaded: ‘What exactly were you arguing here?’or ‘How does this point/section relate to your central argument?’. Very oftensuch problems relate to the composition and synthesis of the thesis: thesimple fact that the candidate has failed to contextualize an (earlier) sectionof writing properly. Moreover, the inclusion of proper contexualization/signposting is one of the things that examiners most often ask for in theircorrections.

4.12 Testing points of weakness or ambiguity

Higher degree examiners have traditionally considered it their duty to act, inpart, as editors of their candidates’ theses and point to those details ofexpression or expostion that are ambiguous or contentious.

It is sadly a responsibility that some examiners take rather too seriouslyand can – if pursued to the point of exhaustion – result in an extremelynegative, and lowering, viva. While it is true that making sure a thesis is fit toreside in the university library for posterity is a central responsibility of theexaminer, it is important to distinguish between those points of ambiguitywhich require discussion in the viva and those that do not. Even if there aremany small points that the examiners wish to see tidied up, there is surely nopoint in pointing to them one by one, and page by page, except for thepurpose of humiliation. Such items are best dealt with alongside the typosand stylistic/bibliographic errors and presented to the student/supervisorat the end of the viva as a list of errata printed on a separate sheet. Althoughlarge quantities of such errors may well result in the thesis being madesubject to ‘major corrections’ or a referral, I would argue that there is stilllittle to be gained by pointing them out in such an agonizing way. Theprecious one, two or three hours allocated to the viva should never get socaught up in this sort of nit-picking that there is a failure to engage with the‘big ideas’. In their section on different styles of examining, Tinkler andJackson (2004: 71) following Brown and Atkins (1988) refer to this species ofexaminer as ‘the proofreader’ and anyone who has made the mistake ofappointing one knows how severely dispiriting a nit-picking viva can be forthe candidate.


Where a point of ambiguity or need for clarification is central to the raisond’être of the thesis as a whole, however, the examiners should be prepared totake their time. A candidate might have coined a new term or concept, forexample, which – while ingenious – is not thought to be ‘quite right’, and theexaminers may wish to get to the heart of what he or she was trying to specify.Very often, points of ambiguity involve the use of specialized vocabulary –whether invented or imported – and reveal the candidate to be strugglingwith concepts they do not properly understand. In such instances it is clearlythe responsibility of the examiners not only to expose, but also to assist(‘Perhaps the concept you are looking for is . . .’). And on occasion,of course, the candidate will have to be told to go away and rethink thatparticular thought trajectory again.

Higher degrees in subjects like mathematics and physics may requirea lengthy dissection of what, to the non-specialist, might appear to be atiny point of detail. The crucial issue here – for all disciplines – must bewhether the ‘detail’ dealt with is of fundamental importance to the thesis as awhole. If it is not, the viva is surely not the place to deal with it: the sheet ofcorrections submitted with the post-viva report is.

Readers are also directed to Murray’s How to Survive Your Viva (2003a)which has a substantial section on ‘Talking about weaknesses’ (pp. 102–6) asseen from the candidate’s point of view. The fact that such books are nowoffering students practical advice and instruction on how to become morecomfortable with a critical/self-reflexive approach to their research should,in time, prove as helpful for examiners as it is for the candidates.

4.13 Testing the candidate’s knowledge ofthe field

Testing the candidate’s knowledge of the field is one of those conventions ofhigher degree examination that might well find its way into the Examiners’Handbook or Guidelines. In other words, it is a duty of the examiner thatcontinues to be taken very seriously and which – rather like ‘points of ambi-guity’ – tends to bring out the worst in the more zealous of our colleagues.

In terms of viva questioning, attention to this particular issue is oftensignalled by the examiner turning (sometimes literally!) to the bibliographyand pouncing on one of the entries in order to ask such things as:

• Why did you chose to work with X?• Why did you chose to work with X instead of Y?• What did you find especially useful in X’s book/article?• Can you remind us of the main argument in X’s book?• I see you cite X in your bibliography. What do you make of their more

recent work?

Not surprisingly, these are the pointed, on-the-spot sort of questions thathigher degree candidates reportedly dread (see Murray 2003a: 64–5, 72;


Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 150). Indeed, in mock vivas or viva preparationclasses candidates repeatedly ask: ‘But what do I do if they ask me about Xand I don’t remember?’ Bearing in mind how difficult it is for all of us torespond to such questions (involving memory) in stressful situations, this istherefore another circumstance in which it is desirable that examiners exer-cise lenience. If a candidate struggles to say something intelligent about oneof the researchers in the field that you have singled out, simply move on toanother (and possibly another again). If the candidate struggles to say any-thing interesting or informed about any of them you might start to worry, ofcourse, but a single ‘blanking out’ in such circumstances should surely betolerated.

Even worse for the candidate than the ‘Tell us about X’ question is theinfamous ‘I was surprised not to find X listed in your bibliography’: in otherwords, the examiner’s decision to confront the candidate with what they seeas a significant omission of an author or area of research relevant to thethesis. This ‘failure of coverage/citation’ is a ‘crime’ that tends to hauntacademics their whole careers (possibly because many of them have sufferedthe trauma of such a ‘calling to account’ in their vivas!). Examiners are onceagain encouraged to look to their conscience before launching into this kindof question. Is this omission a genuine and serious one, or simply one thathas been seized upon so that you can be seen to have been doing your duty asa scholar and examiner? Inasmuch as all research makes strategic decisionsto exclude ten of X in favour of one of Y, it seems unfair to spend too longon this sort of negative accounting unless the missing authors/texts areabsolutely central to the work as a whole.

Other aspects of questioning – for example, issues surrounding authen-ticity and plagiarism, and how you as an examiner should aim to interact withthe candidate on the day will be dealt with in Chapter 5.

4.14 Last-minute preparations

While the candidate is liable to have last-minute panics in the days runningup to the viva, so is the examiner. The chapter now concludes with a fewwords regarding final preparations more generally.

The first item on the agenda, of course, is whether you should attempt toreread the thesis at some point in that last week. Many examiners swear by it;indeed, I am aware of some who believe it is more or less a ‘duty’ and thatmaking two close readings of the text is what being a PhD examiner is allabout.

Not surprisingly, the number of examiners who are prepared to put in thisamount of work appears to be dwindling. As was noted in Chapter 3, a closeread of any 100,000-word document will take a minimum of eight to tenhours and – if notes are being taken – many more than this. At the sametime, it would seem that most examiners feel compelled to at least ‘look over’the thesis again in the run-up to the viva, with many externals making use of


their train journey to the host institution to perform this final ‘revision’. Thefact that examiners feel the need to be so ‘on the ball’ about what they areexamining reminds us once again about the crucial difference between awritten and an oral exam: in the former the examiner needs to prove noth-ing; in the latter, he or she needs to prove that they are the authority they arepurported to be.

For those examiners who find they simply do not have the time to put in asecond close reading of the thesis before the event, it is advisable to deploythe sort of ‘active revision’ that students use before exams. In other words,rather than passively rereading bits and pieces of the text, use your pre-vivareport and/or provisional questions to target your own rereading. Return tothose sections of the thesis which seem to be the most weak or controversialand make absolutely sure that what you are ‘accusing’ the candidate of iscredible. Another trick is to return to the abstract and/or introduction andconsider, afresh, to what extent the thesis achieves what it sets out to do.Similarly, take a further long, hard look at the conclusion and use that todirect you to the more obvious gaps in what has been presented.

Apart from your list of questions, it might also be worth condensing themain points from your original set of notes (with chapter and page refer-ences to the thesis). Summarize the main strengths and weaknesses fromeach chapter, and copy out – verbatim – any sentences which seem especiallyproblematic or ridiculous. This is not so that you can humiliate the candidateon the day, but rather to get the issues absolutely clear in your own head.Some detailed reference to the thesis is desirable in every viva, and havingparticular quotes ready ‘at a glance’ can help you with this sort of focus andscrutiny. Finding your way around the thesis in the exam room might also beimproved if you put labels or stickers in at key points and/or divide up thechapters. Indeed, unless some of this preparation is undertaken it is possiblethat you’ll end up not referring to the text at all (which is not to say that youshould feel obliged to make every point via the text in ‘proofreader’ style).

By actively re-engaging with the thesis you should find you have more thanenough to talk about – and hence present yourself as a credible examiner –on the day. Forgetting to take the thesis with you is one thing you shouldguard against, of course, though this is unlikely: most PhD theses weigh a tonand are not easily mislaid. Indeed, examiners frequently greet each otherwith the line ‘I’ll be glad to leave this behind later!’ Doubtless the candidateswould, if they could, say the same.


5The viva

Even as the viva features as the most potentially traumatic event in thepostgraduate student’s life, so does it have a tendency to figure itself as ‘thereturn of the repressed’ in the lives of many examiners.

Even those of us who enjoyed a positive viva experience ourselves are likelyto be reminded of other (less friendly) examination experiences themoment we walk into the room where the viva is to take place. Moreover, thefalse informality of many viva settings (especially in humanities subjects) canactually make the situation worse; three or four people slump into easy chairsaround a coffee table before suddenly remembering what they are about and(to invoke the all too appropriate war metaphor) ‘going on the offensive’.We must assume, of course, that this tendency to launch into combat is mostoften unplanned (indeed, it may be seen as a symptom of the unstructurednature of the viva); on some occasions, however, the manner of the attackwill most certainly have been calculated – a ‘pre-emptive strike’ designed tocatch the candidate off guard. For – make no mistake about it – the profes-sionalism with which readers of this book will hopefully be approaching theirexamining is not shared by all colleagues. Gatekeeping, bullying and revenge(on supervisors and/or other examiners rather than the candidatethemselves) all sadly play their part (see Introduction and 1.8).

Further thoughts on the (generally unspoken) psychology of the viva fromthe examiners’ point of view will accompany the more practical guidanceoffered in this chapter. Unlike the examiners involved in the unsavouryscenarios invoked above, it has been assumed that most colleagues readingthis book do so with the candidate’s learning experience, and not their ownegos, as the topmost priority. Yet this assumption itself goes to the very heartof what, to date, is so unformulated about the UK viva: namely, the purposeof the event beyond the obvious need to ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ the thesis. While someinstitutions and individuals are finally waking up to the fact that a viva can bea formative and highly educational part of the student’s academicapprenticeship, many more assume that the ‘learning’ has already beendone. For these examiners, the viva is simply a means of passing judgement

or, at best, offering suggestions for future publication; no thought at all isgiven to the more holistic educational possibilities.

5.1 The role of the internal and externalexaminers at the viva

While the role of the internal and external examiners may be spelt out in theliterature which you receive with your appointment letter (see 2.5), it isimportant to realize that there are a good many ‘unofficial’ assumptionsassociated with both posts and, in particular, the dynamic between them.

The first, and most pervasive, assumption is that the external examinerwill take the lead role in both the questioning and decision-making (Tinklerand Jackson 2004: 82). Most often chosen on account of his or her ‘expert’status, the external’s opinion is the one that the internal examiner and theinstitution (as well as the candidate) are expected to defer to.

What this means in practice will, of course, vary from viva to viva (anddiscipline to discipline) but, in general, the role of the external examinermay be summarized as follows. They will:

• lead the questioning;• ask more questions than the internal;• press the candidate on points of detail;• ask the candidate about aspects of his or her supervision and research

training;• point to deficiencies in coverage;• lead the discussion concerning corrections;• lead the discussion concerning future publications;• be the first to tender official congratulations.

Such generalizations exist to be broken, however, and prospectiveexaminers should be aware that – until the viva is underway – they cannotwholly be sure which examiner is going to take the lead role. The fact thatboth parties might have agreed to an order or manner of questioning beforethe viva does not mean that it will necessarily be adhered to, nor that theexaminers will abide by the dominant/subordinate roles expected of them.

Indeed, all of us who have been involved in higher degree examinationfor a number of years are able to cite instances of vivas where the internalexaminer has dominated the questioning and decision-making. While insome cases this will have been an unseemly exercise of power (or vanity), inothers it will have been to compensate for an external who has not done hisor her job properly. (An anecdote concerning a celebrated Oxbridge donwho fell asleep in the course of a viva comes to mind!) Needless to say, thepotential necessity for role reversal will have to be born in mind whicheverposition – internal or external – you are officially performing. While theinappropriate dominance of an internal examiner (sometimes operating


quite blatantly in the candidate’s/institution’s defence) is the most likelyabuse of protocol that you will encounter, other permutations should also beprepared for. As was noted earlier (see 2.1), all relatively young or inexperi-enced examiners (both internal or external) are liable to undue pressureand/or coercion from their opposite numbers and should keep their‘independent’ pre-viva reports close to hand at all times.

Having listed the offices normally associated with the role of externalexaminer, and observed the widespread exceptions to the rule/role, here is asummary of what is commonly expected of internal examiners. They will:

• make the formal introductions (in the absence of a chair);• indicate to the candidate that they have already effectively ‘passed’ (this is

an extremely controversial practice – see 5.8);• indicate to the candidate that there might be ‘a problem’;• ask the second (and then alternate) questions;• (or) ask far fewer questions than the external;• play ‘good cop’ to the external’s ‘bad cop’ (although this is a totally

‘unspoken’ aspect of practice);• timekeep (in the absence of a chair);• wrap up the discussion (in the absence of a chair);• ask the candidate to leave the room while the final decision is made (in

the absence of a chair);• invite the supervisor to join the final discussions if they are not already

present (in the absence of a chair);• produce a written record of any corrections (in the absence of a chair

and/or supervisor).

It will thus be seen that the nature of the internal examiner’s role is verymuch determined by whether or not there is an independent chair andwhether or not the supervisor is present. The roles of chair and examiner arenot really compatible, and internals who find themselves acting as chairs aremore likely to take a back seat in the questioning.

5.2 More than one external/internalexaminer?

All that has just been observed about the power relations between internaland external examiners is inevitably magnified when more than one externalor internal examiner is involved. The clash of opinions/battle of egosbetween jointly appointed external examiners has, indeed, become one ofthe most infamous features of higher degree examining – though we perhapshave to accept that the retrospective complaints that abound concerningsuch behaviour most often come from candidates notionally ‘robbed’ oftheir degree by one or other of the parties. There can be no escaping thefact, however, that one particular genre of ‘bad viva’ is that in which the

The viva 81

examiners (especially two external examiners) spend more time sloggingit out between themselves than attending to the candidate (see also 4.6 forguidelines on this). In cases where the findings of the thesis favour the work/position of one examiner more than the other, this is perhaps inevitable; butit is surely also regrettable that the candidate should become the butt of apower struggle in such a way. Should you end up being the internal in suchan examination, it clearly behoves you to keep the examiners focused on thecandidate and his or her work as much as possible. However, such situationsare surely another compelling argument for the presence of an independentchair.

The appointment of two internal (as opposed to two external) examinersis much rarer but may occur in instances where an otherwise ideal subjectspecialist is deemed ‘too junior’ or inexperienced to undertake the jobindependently. Power struggles between two internals are rarer than thosebetween two externals, but should not be ruled out; wherever academicscome together in situations which put their knowledge on trial this sort ofbehaviour is all too sadly possible.

It should also be noted that in some instances institutions may prefer toappoint two externals (instead of an internal and an external) rather thanadd to the total number of appointments. This is often the case when thecandidate is already a member of staff in the department, or where nosuitable internal examiner can be found. As Tinkler and Jackson observe(2004: 86), the presence of a chair (to advise on university procedure andregulations) is highly desirable in these circumstances; if you happen to findyourself one of two externals it is therefore strongly recommended that youask for a chair to be present.

5.3 Role of the chair, supervisor(s) and othersat the viva

As has be made clear throughout, I am strongly in favour of the presence ofan independent chair at all vivas. Not only will such a person enable theinternal examiner to concentrate on his or her role as an examiner ratherthan take responsibility for facilitating and timekeeping, but they should alsoprevent the domination of one, or more, questioners and perform the roleof an independent witness to the event. In cases where a complaint or appealis raised concerning the behaviour of one or more of the examiners in theviva, the presence of such a witness is, of course, invaluable. At many insti-tutions in the UK, the appointment of an independent chair to the vivacommittee is now compulsory, but (at the time of going to press) the practiceis still far from commonplace.

The duties and responsibilities allocated to the chair may vary significantlyfrom institution to institution but would normally include most of thefollowing:


• to formally introduce all parties present at the viva and to facilitatediscussion generally;

• to advise all parties of the rules, regulations and parameters attached tothe viva;

• to solicit questions from the examiners in turn;• to ensure that one or more examiners does not dominate the questioning;• to ensure that the candidate is given sufficient time and space to answer a

question;• to recommend a short break in proceedings if the viva has gone on for a

long time;• to request the candidate to leave the room should the examiners wish to

consider the result in private;• to invite the supervisor to join the discussion at an appropriate moment;• to take notes on the viva;• to take notes on any corrections and recommendations;• to initiate closure and thank all parties for their participation;• to advise examiners on the post-viva report and any other paperwork still

outstanding.

It will be seen, therefore, that being the chair of a higher degree viva is avery full and demanding role if performed well. This, sadly, is probably oneof the main reasons why both individuals and institutions have beenreluctant to entertain it as standard practice. The argument commonly usedto block such initiatives is that there are simply not the ‘resources’; wecannot expect hard-pressed colleagues to take on yet another professionalrequirement for which they are neither timetabled nor paid.

The counter-argument here (and one that all postgraduate directors andregistries would surely attest to) is that, in those cases where the viva goeswrong, the absence of an independent chair will most certainly entail moretime and expense in the long run. At some institutions the problem ofresourcing is being addressed by establishing a ‘pool’ of possible chairs on afaculty basis. This means that individuals may be rotated in such a mannerthat no one person ends up doing the job more than two or three timesa year.

The proper training of viva chairs is another issue that needs to beaddressed by the institutions that do elect to operate such a system (seeTinkler and Jackson 2004: 85–90). This should not be overdone, but sugges-tions for what to do when a viva gets out of hand (as well as clear writteninstructions on the role and responsibilities of the chair) are needed.Probably the most variable aspect of chairing at the present time concernsnote-taking. Although, in my experience, most chairs automatically elect totake notes, who or what they are for is unclear, and some candidates – notsurprisingly – express concern about what will be done with them. While it isadmittedly quite difficult to sit through a discussion the length of a vivawithout writing something down, none of the UK guidelines on chairing thatwere examined for the purpose of this book list note-taking as a duty or

The viva 83

responsibility. It is therefore advisable that all prospective chairs check thestatus of any notes they are likely to make with their registries and theninform the candidate exactly what that status is and if/when the notes will bedestroyed. On this point it is also worth noting that in North America andCanada the chair is routinely expected to send a full report on the viva to thegraduate school committee – i.e., it is expressly part of his or her job.

The presence, or not, of the candidate’s supervisor(s) at the viva is anothervariable in the viva experience at the present time. As discussed in 1.8 it isalso one of ‘choices’ that colleagues and institutions get most exercisedabout: for every argument suggesting why the supervisor(s) should be there,there is another spelling out why they should not (see Tinkler and Jackson2004: 90–4). Although it is not necessary to revisit the politics of such choicesin this chapter, it is evident that the presence of more (or less) people in theroom has a profound effect on the ambiance of the viva. Even if the super-visor, like the chair, is a ‘silent witness’ to the proceedings, he or she willstill impact on the dynamics of the examination process. Indeed, it hasbeen argued that any additional body in the room will help dispel the‘interrogation-like’ scenario of the candidate and his or her two inquisitors(see Murray 2002b). If nothing else, the chair and supervisor(s) create anaudience for the candidate’s defence that is wider than the two examiners.However, there are some equally strong arguments as to why the supervisor’spresence may be undesirable.

In those instances where a supervisor is invited to participate in the viva,his or her role is normally limited to that of a silent observer whose dutiesmay be summarized thus:

• to make formal introductions (as the common denominator between allparties and in the absence of a chair);

• to take notes throughout the viva with the aim of assisting the candidatewith any corrections/publication opportunities;

• to witness fair play (but not to intervene);• to note any recommendations and calls for correction.

It should also be noted that, on those occasions where the supervisor(s)are not present at the viva, it is usual for them to take responsibility for‘looking after’ the candidate. This includes escorting them to the roomwhere the viva is to take place, and greeting them afterwards. It is alsoextremely useful for the supervisor to ‘debrief’ the candidate immediatelyafter the viva. Such an interview may help dispel unnecessary anxiety and/ordisappointment, and is an opportunity to crystallize corrections and recom-mendations before they are forgotten. (This conversation frequently takesplace while the two examiners are filling in their post-viva report forms andbefore some, or all, of the parties go off for lunch together – see 5.19.)

It should finally be remembered that – unlike institutions in North Americaand continental Europe – UK universities generally do not permit family,friends and colleagues to attend the viva. This is one of the defining featuresof the UK system (see Chapter 1).


5.4 Examination practice at differentinstitutions

Although most UK vivas involve the spectrum of personnel described in theprevious sections, there are still significant differences ‘on the ground’ as faras the actual examination is concerned. Some of these are discipline-specific;others are to do with the ‘type’ of qualification the PhD (or M.Phil) isperceived to be in different sectors.

In certain subjects, or in ‘new universities’, for example, there may bemore emphasis on the higher degree as a vocational qualification. Thismay, in turn, translate into a more formal examination setting (board-room-style table and seating rather than easy chairs and coffee tables) andcarry with it the expectation of formal dress (suits, ties, briefcases etc.). Inother subject areas (most notably the humanities and social sciences) thereis a tradition of much greater informality, with examination practices tomatch. In this sector (and especially in the ‘old universities’), vivas aremost likely to take place in a lecturer’s room (usually that of the internalexaminer) and to entail a far less formal (or even ‘anti-establishment’)dress code.

The higher degree examination practices at Oxford and Cambridge,meanwhile, are unique to those institutions and colleagues invited to examineat them for the first time would do well to discuss their somewhat arcanerituals with the internal examiner in advance.

In the Oxford colleges, for example, it is usual for the viva to be held in aformal examination hall with the candidate and internal examiner in fullacademic dress (i.e. the hat and gown of the Oxford undergraduate wornwith a black suit/skirt and white shirt with black tie). Externals (includingthose from institutions other than Oxford) are also invited to wear gowns ifthey wish.

Assuming that the external examiner has met with the internal some timein advance of the viva, it is then usual for the external to present him- orherself at the porter’s lodge of the relevant college shortly before the viva isdue to begin. She or he will then be escorted by the porter to the hall wherethe viva is to be held, while the candidate is escorted from the lodge by theinternal examiner. If (as is desirable) the external examiner has arrived inthe hall before the internal and candidate, the internal will then make theformal introductions.

With such strict codes of dress and protocol in place, it is difficult for theviva to be anything other than formal, although many of those who have longbeen subject to the conventions will argue strongly in favour of this. Suchhighly visible signs of this being a true ‘examination’ certainly prevent bothcandidates and examiners falling into the mistaken assumption that the vivais no more than a friendly chat. At Oxford and Cambridge there is no mistak-ing its status as the highest form of university assessment.

The viva 85

5.5 Meeting of examiners before the viva

As previously noted, there is a general expectation that most internal andexternal examiners will have spoken by phone, or at least corresponded byemail, in advance of the viva.

However, it is important not to forget that these pairs (or trios) of examin-ers have never before met in person, and therefore require a little time to getto know one another. If the external is travelling from a distance it is ideal(and common) practice for the two (or more) examiners to meet up for ameal the night before the viva. This will give them time to discuss the meritsof the thesis at their leisure, and to formulate their list of questions. It isequally common, however, for the external(s) to arrive at their destinationuniversity less than an hour before the start of the viva and in these circum-stances it is highly desirable that the examiners will have planned theirquestions/agenda in advance and use what time there is before the vivato finalize details. It is certainly not good practice to keep the candidatewaiting (although up to 15 minutes is fairly common).

Assuming that both examiners arrive at this pre-viva meeting with a list ofquestions and issues ready-prepared, their main task will be one of selectionand ordering. Bearing in mind the common practice of the external(s)taking the lead role, he or she should have first choice of questions and alsoindicate which ones will need the most time. It is also normal for all examin-ers to prepare more questions than they actually ask, and also for them todevise new ones in response to the discussion. It is not desirable for eitherexaminer to steer too wildly – or too repeatedly – from the agreed course,since this might cause them to lose track of the very things they thoughtrequired examining.

Needless to say, this meeting will be both examiners’ final opportunity toarticulate the ‘expected result’ of the examination, and to identify whatissues (if any) require further examination before the thesis can meet itsrequirements. Examiners are also advised to think carefully about wheresuch ‘success’ or ‘failure’ questions are positioned within the viva as whole; itis certainly tough on the candidate to launch into a ‘big problem’ with thefirst question – but it has been known to happen. Once again, examinersneed to be honest with themselves about their objectives (see 4.4): even ifthey believe the thesis is bound for one of the referral categories (see 2.7), isit not still desirable that the candidate should be advised, and encouraged, asmuch as possible?

5.6 Preparing the room for the viva

Although institutions vary considerably in the nature and extent of theguidelines offered to prospective examiners, it is unlikely that any willinclude advice on how to prepare the examination room. The assumption of


all parties is that ‘someone else’ will have done it and, of course, they won’t!Thus, while higher degree examiners might be justified in thinking thatmoving furniture is not their job, often they will be forced into it. The excep-tions will be the vivas that take place in Oxbridge examination halls and inseminar rooms with fixed (boardroom-style) seating arrangements, but eventhen the examiners will have to decide where to seat the candidate to ensurethe correct balance of comfort and formality. Moreover, as the viva very oftentakes place in the internal examiner’s own room, he or she must expect totake primary responsibility.

The nature of the seating arrangements will obviously depend, in the firstinstance, on the number of panel members. In those vivas where the min-imum of three people (candidate and two examiners) are present, a smallcircle or triangle is the commonest choice – although some examiners stillchoose to place themselves on one side of a table and the candidate on theother. Where the panel consists of three, four or even five people (threeexaminers, a chair and a supervisor, for instance) care should be taken toarrange the seats in such a way that the candidate can talk to the mostimportant people easily – i.e. the examiners need to be to the fore, but thesupervisor may literally take a ‘back seat’. Anyone who has endured a formalinterview situation knows how difficult it is to include a whole room ofpeople in one’s response, and attention to seating will certainly help improvethe candidate’s viva experience.

The presence – or not – of tables in vivas is a matter of some concern.While both the candidate and the examiners are expected to refer to thethesis at some point during the examination (perhaps frequently) and takenotes, one cannot assume there will be a table on which to rest. This iscertainly the case with the ‘easy chair and coffee-table’-type viva, where (inmy experience) thesis, notes, notepad and, indeed, coffee cups get piled upat the participants’ feet. In these circumstances, it would be quite legitimatefor both the candidate and the examiners to ask for some sort of table to bebrought into the room (see also Tinkler and Jackson 2004: 188–9).

Although this possibly risks insulting the common sense of readers, Iwould also remind examiners that the viva room should be sensibly heated(neither too hot nor too cold) and kept as quiet as possible. If the examinationis to take place in a lecturer’s room, it is a good idea to put an ‘Examinationin Progress’ sign on the door and to redirect the telephone. Similarly, thoseresponsible for preparing the room for the viva should check that no noisybuilding work will be happening close to the room during the course of theexam (needless to say, this advice is based on experience!).

5.7 Meeting and greeting the candidate

Unless the supervisor is also sitting in on the viva, it is usual (i.e. a point ofcourtesy and etiquette) for him or her to bring the candidate to the examin-ation room. The supervisor might also make the formal introductions,

The viva 87

although both the chair and/or the internal examiner may also assumethis responsibility. The introductions usually include handshaking and someexchange of pleasantries before the candidate and the examiners are seated.The chair or internal examiner should normally assume responsibilityfor this.

In vivas where an independent chair is present, he or she may then outlineto the candidate and examiners any relevant guidelines or points of protocol.This could include some explanation of his or her own role, the fact that theexaminers will take turns to ask questions, how the candidate is free to ask forclarification at any point, and (possibly) the expected length of the viva. Thelatter is, of course, a contentious issue (and at the heart of the idiosyncrasy ofthe UK viva: see discussion in 1.3), but some institutions now recommendthat an indication of the viva’s duration should be offered to candidates atthe outset.

5.8 Advising the candidate of the result at thestart of the viva (or not)

If the unspecified length of the viva is one variable that institutions arereluctant to agree guidelines for, then the practice of advising the candidateof his or her result at the start of the viva is another (see Tinkler and Jackson2004: 190). It is also – by common agreement – potentially dangerous.

Needless to say, the variable practice on this point causes huge anxiety forcandidates who aren’t ‘given the nod’ and can create an equally problematicsense of false security for those who are. Take the case, for example, of thecandidate who was told she had ‘passed’ but who subsequently had her thesistorn apart so severely that she spent the latter part of the viva thinking shemust have misunderstood what the examiners were saying at the beginning!This is an instance, clearly, in which declaring the result in advance was notintended to put the candidate at her ease as much as to permit the examinersto be brutal.

Although the proper advice must thus surely be for all examiners to resistthe temptation of putting the candidate prematurely at their ease, the‘official’ guidelines in the UK at the present time are (where they exist)entirely divided. Take, for example, these two sets of instructions fromLancaster and Oxford.

Lancaster University: general comments on the conduct of theexamination

Where examiners have already agreed that the approval of the thesisshould be recommended they may, in order to put the student at ease,choose to mention this at the beginning of the viva. Some examinersprefer not to do this, so it should not be seen as a bad sign if they don’t.1



University of Oxford5.3 Conduct of the oral examination

Examiners are reminded that the oral exam is an integral part of theexamination process for a research degree, with the specific purposesset out in 5.1, and care should be taken to avoid giving the impressionat any time during the viva voce that the oral examination and thesubsequent consideration of the examiners’ report and recommenda-tion by the faculty board are in any sense mere formalities.2

Source: University of Oxford (2001)

Candidates are especially mindful of the experiences of their friendswhen it comes to this aspect of the viva, so the very least examiners shoulddo is check out (via the chair and/or internal) what the normal practice is atthat institution. If there is a culture of candidates being advised of a positiveresult at the start of the viva, then the examiners should certainly explainany decision not to do so in order to prevent the candidate flying into ablind panic. Since many externals dislike the practice and will resist it, thereshould be no assumption on anyone’s part that this is ‘standard practice’anywhere.

Examiners are also reminded that one of the reasons that it is inadvisableto release the result early (especially in the case of seemingly outstandingtheses) is that one of the purposes of the viva is to test authenticity. Shoulddoubts of authorship creep into a viva when the candidate has already beenassured of a ‘positive outcome’, this would leave the examiners in a verydifficult position indeed.

One possible, and ethically acceptable, compromise is for one, or both,examiners to begin by telling the candidate how much they enjoyed readingthe thesis; this is a means of acknowledging the positive contribution madeby the work without directly alluding to the outcome. At the same time, somebetter-informed candidates might take this as the ‘prequel to criticism’ that itsometimes is, and other more spontaneous, and original, ways of communi-cating enthusiasm at this point are generally to be welcomed. (How examinerscommence a viva when the thesis is seriously problematic should have beenaddressed, and in detail, in the examiners’ pre-viva meeting.)

5.9 Testing that the thesis is the candidate’sown work

Targeted questions concerning texts and authors central to the field is, ofcourse, one means by which the examiners can simultaneously be testing theidentity and legitimacy of the candidate and his or her thesis. Failure to showdetailed knowledge of any texts or authors working in the field might leadthe examiners to query the status of the thesis: were large chunks of it liftedfrom somebody else’s work, for example, or has the supervisor done most ofthe candidate’s work for them?

The viva 89

In 3.8 I discussed the potential for plagiarism in higher degrees and whatexaminers should do if they suspect it at the reading phase of the examin-ation process. It was advised that examiners would do well to address theirsuspicions at that point, both with their fellow examiners and with the Post-graduate Registry. However, should that preliminary ‘checking out’ proveinconclusive, and the examiners decide that the viva should go ahead, theywill clearly need to prepare their questions carefully.

A preliminary decision will also have to be made about whether toconfront the candidate with the concerns directly, or to create questionswhich will put him or her on the spot. For most subjects – sciences as well ashumanities – one of the best tests of authorship is to ask the candidate toexplain how they arrived at X or Y. Should your suspicions fail to beappeased, this might then be the moment to launch a direct challenge. Itshould nevertheless be remembered that anyone suspected of plagiarismremains innocent until proven guilty and that the candidate may well choose tobrazen it out.

Although none of the guidelines consulted for this volume address suchan unfortunate scenario, it is presumably within the rights of examiners todefer a final decision on a thesis if the viva raises more doubts than it allays interms of authenticity. Nevertheless, it will still be up to the examiners toprove their case and all those of us who have been involved in protractedsuits of this kind at undergraduate level are mindful of the hours and hoursof work involved. So the final advice must be: don’t raise the spectre ofplagiarism unless you truly believe you have a good chance of winning – evenif you remain acutely suspicious of the candidate and their thesis.

5.10 Making sure the candidate understandsyour questions

When we are nervous it is not always easy to hear, let alone understand, whatsomeone is asking us (see Murray 2003a: 77). Most people reading this bookwill know this in relation to their own PhD viva or with respect to another sortof interview.

It therefore goes without saying that higher degree examiners should beespecially considerate and patient when asking their candidates questions.While a confident candidate will inevitably make a good impression on thepanel, it is important for us to remember that an M.Phil/PhD viva is notmeant to be assessing presentation skills per se. This makes it a distinctlydifferent event from an academic job interview, for example, where theapplicant is being tested not only on his or her knowledge but also how thatknowledge is communicated. Thus while there is a strong argument thatsupervisors and institutions should prepare their graduate students in theoral delivery of their research (see Murray 2003a), ‘presentation’ is not, asyet, a category of higher degree assessment; candidates can stumble or


mumble in their responses as much as they like providing they arrive at adecent answer in the end.

Since this is the case, examiners should try to ask their questions as clearlyand accessibly as possible and be prepared to rephrase them (perhapsseveral times) if the candidate does not understand what is being asked. Mostcandidates are now advised of their ‘right’ to request this in advance of theviva (see Murray 2003a: 113).

If a candidate is really struggling to understand what you are getting at, itmight help to provide them with an example or an analogy, or to take themto the place in the thesis to which your question relates. If the candidatecontinues to ‘blank’ it is best to move on and return to the issue (perhaps inanother guise) later. Remember that, in stressful situations, people oftenrespond to the tone of a question rather than its content and a candidatewho infers hostility or challenge might find it hard to hear what you aresaying at all.

Above all, patience is the key – providing it isn’t accompanied by longsilences that can, themselves, be interpreted as further hostility.

5.11 Responding to the candidate

Even as the viva requires patient questioning, so does it also necessitategood listening. A ‘bad examiner’ in this context is stereotypically one thatrushes into his or her next question without appearing to have heard, ordigested, what the candidate has said; such an examiner might also interruptthe candidate’s response, or cut it short with some dismissive remark.

If a chair is present at the viva, they may be able to intervene in excessivebad practice of this kind by putting a hand up to the examiner and invitingthe candidate to continue in his or her response. Similarly, if the problemlies with your opposite number (i.e. the other examiner) you may elect to dothe same, though this is often easier said than done.

By contrast, the examiner who is a good listener will facilitate thecandidate’s response by nods and/or small verbal interventions (‘yes’,‘exactly’, ‘that’s interesting . . .’) while nevertheless waiting for them to get tothe end of what they want to say.

In those (rare!) instances where you are presented with a garrulouscandidate, there must obviously be a limit to the patient, attentive listening.Candidates who do not know when to stop when answering questions mayend up doing themselves, and their thesis, a good deal of harm and itobviously behoves the examiners and/or the chair to put a stop to it if at allpossible. If the practice persists, you might further help the candidate byadding the cue ‘in a sentence or two’ to the end of your question.

By and large, however, the verbosity of fellow examiners is the biggestproblem in vivas (and is one of the strongest arguments for the appointmentof chairs).

The viva 91

5.12 Coping with a candidate who dries upor breaks down

The previous sections have already offered some suggestions for what to dowhen a candidate is struggling to understand a question and/or ‘goes blank’.If the ‘blank’ turns into a more serious catatonic response, it is usually best toacknowledge the problem and to invite the candidate to take a break. Eitherthe chair or internal examiner should take the candidate out of the room,and attempt some normalizing activity – like going to get a cup of coffee.Obviously the break cannot be too long if the viva is to continue that day,but 10–30 minutes could make all the difference. The same strategy isrecommended for candidates who actually break down in the viva. Since it isimpossible to pretend that such a thing isn’t happening (as some examinershave been known to do), every effort must once again be made to de-stressand normalize the situation. Some kind and preferably light-hearted wordsfrom the panel will hopefully do the trick, and the person who has accom-panied the candidate from the room should make every effort to reassurethem that they won’t fail the viva simply because they have become upset.

Should the candidate dry up or break down repeatedly, the viva may, ofcourse, have to be abandoned. The chair or internal examiner should seekadvice from the Postgraduate Registry immediately in such circumstances, andpreferably before any of the parties involved (candidate or examiners) haveleft the institution.

5.13 Taking notes in the viva and/ortape-recording

Although it is sometimes difficult to keep notes at a viva when you are alsothe one asking the questions, it is useful for someone to undertake thisresponsibility. An independent chair is, of course, the ideal person for thejob (if they have been so advised – see 5.3), but in their absence the internalexaminer is encouraged to keep a note of what the candidate is being askedand how they responds, and of suggested corrections to the thesis.

One of the problems here is that these are two very different kindsof note-taking with two very different objectives. Keeping notes on theproceedings is effectively a safeguard in the event of a post-viva complaint orappeal by the candidate; keeping notes on the corrections is to ensure thatthe candidate and his or her supervisor are clearly advised on what needs tobe done for the revised thesis to be accepted.

With respect to the first, there are, of course, obvious reasons why anindependent chair may be assumed to be a better witness than an examiner.Some institutions are also considering introducing the tape-recording ofvivas as a form of protection for both examiners and the candidate should acomplaint subsequently be lodged.3 Most academics remain hostile to the


idea of tape-recording, likening it to police interrogation, but surveysconducted by Students’ Unions have found postgraduates to be widely insupport of it. Those of us who have had to deal with the consequences ofvivas which have gone horribly wrong – and, in particular, those which haveinvolved alleged bullying and intimidation – tend to be in favour of someform of protection from the candidate’s point of view, but I would suggestthat in these days of increased litigation examiners would probably benefitfrom some form of record-keeping too.

Whatever system of monitoring the institution at which you are examiningdoes, or does not, operate, I strongly recommend that you raise the issuewith your fellow examiner(s), especially if you anticipate yours being a‘problem’ viva.

With respect to making notes on requested corrections, your optionswill depend on whether the candidate’s supervisor is or is not present. If theyare, then it is assumed that they will take primary responsibility for this,but otherwise it is important that someone – in addition to the candidatethemselves – takes this role on. There are sadly a good number of stories ofreferred theses being sent for further corrections because of inadequateclarification. If the supervisor is not present at the viva it is extremely helpful(after the viva) for the internal examiner to check with the candidate thatthey have understood everything properly.

5.14 Conventions for making a decision:should the candidate leave the room?

Unfortunately this is another grey area in higher degree examinations.While there is a long-standing convention in the academic world that candi-dates should leave the room at the end of the viva when the examiners conferover the ‘final’ result (and then be invited back in), I am not aware of thishappening regularly except where there is ‘a problem’. So, this is anothersituation (similar to the practice of revealing the result at the start of theviva) where candidates can end up being unnecessarily traumatized becauseof a lack of procedural consistency. Once again, those who stand to be mostunnecessarily alarmed are now those who have passed but who are sentoutside simply because the examiners believe in that protocol.

In the absence of clear, nationwide guidelines and procedures on thispractice I recommend that examiners consult with the department and/orinstitution in which they are examining to find out what the standard practiceis. If it is not normal to send candidates out unless there is a problem, but theexaminers nevertheless wish to do so, then it would be a courtesy to advisethe candidate at the start of the viva and make it clear that this does notnecessarily mean that there is a problem. Once again, an independent chairis the best person to do this, or the internal examiner if no chair has beenappointed.

The viva 93

Examiners are also advised to check their Examiners’ Handbook onthis point since (it is hoped) some institutions may be in the process ofstandardizing this procedure.

5.15 Changes and corrections: ensuring clarity

As already indicated it is extremely desirable for someone – in addition tothe candidate – to keep notes on any required changes and corrections inthe course of the viva. Most institutions issue very stringent guidelines toexaminers on this point, as the following examples show.

University of Birmingham

This form must be completed in all cases where a recommendation ismade which involves minor or major corrections to the thesis or aresubmission. Each examiner should provide comments on the work toguide the candidate and should also provide a clear specification of thecorrections (on a separate sheet, if convenient) which can be transmittedto the candidate with the report.

Source: University of Birmingham (2003)

Lancaster University

Where additional work is required (and most students are required toundertake at least some corrections), examiners must make it clear (i)exactly what their recommendation is and why they are making it, and(ii) the nature and scale of the work . . . and time permitted. It is theresponsibility of the internal examiner to provide as soon as possible,and within ten working days, a more detailed written summary of thework to be undertaken following the viva. The summary should eitherbe given to the student at the viva, or to the supervisor following the viva(a copy should be sent to the Postgraduate Studies Office for theirrecords).


As the wording of these extracts make clear, institutions most certainlyhold examiners to account for any complaints or criticisms they have aboutthe thesis; if you believe something is wrong, and needs changing, you areobliged to offer very specific instructions on how that is to be achieved –almost to the point (you may feel) of composing the amendment yourself.

Needless to say, this requirement is a serious – and possibly useful –deterrent against examiners making glib and unspecified criticisms of apiece of work. However, many examiners persist in giving instructions whichare inadequate and/or ambiguous, leaving both candidate and supervisorwith the anxious task of interpretation. There is also a tendency to simplyreproduce the main points made in the pre-viva report and ignore how thesemay need to modified or expanded in the light of the viva discussion.


A useful recommendation here is to be as selective as possible in thechanges you ask for. Even though, in an ideal world, you might wish for farmore substantial amendments, try and keep in mind the distinction between a‘good enough’ thesis and prospective publications in which you would expectcandidates to more rigorously revise and improve the work in question.

Unless you have requested a major referral (see 6.4) there will, in any case,be a limit on what you can ask to be changed. Asking for changes that arestrategic and symptomatic – rather than ones that are exhaustive – is thereforethe sensible way forward. Here are some of the most useful recommendationsyou could make concerning corrections:

• rephrase parts of the abstract so that it is a clear and accurate account ofthe thesis and what it attempts to do;

• rephrase the title of the thesis for similar reasons to the above;• request changes to the introduction to signal more clearly to the reader

what is to follow;• insert paragraphs on methodology/rationale if this has been overlooked;• rewrite opening paragraphs of chapters to refocus the emphasis of each

chapter if its current agenda is misleading;• insert sentences to resolve points of ambiguity or generalization;• insert footnotes for similar reasons to the above;• ask for the conclusion (or parts thereof) to be rewritten.

All these recommendations are made in the spirit of making the thesis as itstands as watertight as possible in those instances where a major rewrite isdeemed unnecessary. Not all institutions will permit such changes without areferral, but many now do. The line between ‘rephrasing’ and ‘rewriting’ isadmittedly a fine one, but examiners should be aware that many institutionspermit changes of the kind detailed above within an ‘intermediate’ categoryof corrections.

With respect to truly ‘minor’ corrections – i.e. typos, stylistic aberrations,incomplete footnotes, incomplete bibliography etc. – the convention isfor each of the examiners to supply the candidate (usually at the viva itself)with a comprehensive list of errata (usually on a separate sheet of paper).The gauntlet you run if you elect to ignore this convention and make thecorrections on the text itself is also dealt with in Chapter 3.

5.16 Providing a post-viva strategy

It is desirable – if far from standard practice – for the viva to be an exercise inlearning and personal development for the candidate as well as an examination.

Apart from developing techniques of questioning which actively promotescholarly reflexivity, good examiners will see the viva as an opportunity forthe candidate to take stock of their academic career more generally.

While, traditionally, examiners have seen it as part of their (albeitunwritten) duty to advise candidates on future publications deriving from

The viva 95

the thesis, few take the time to link this to their career trajectory in a moreholistic way. This might involve something as simple as encouraging thecandidate to think about their plans beyond the thesis: what other topics arethey interested in? Where might their research go next? Indeed, it is some-times as important to advise candidates that they should ‘move on’ fromtheir thesis as it is to encourage them to develop it. Where commercial forcesare involved (as is the case with humanities and social science book publish-ing) it behoves examiners to be absolutely straight with candidates if theydon’t think the PhD (even in revised form) stands a chance of being pub-lished. The fact is that the majority of theses continue to be too narrow,specialized or obscure to attract publishers looking to appeal to studentmarkets. If this is the case with the one you are examining, it would clearly bebest to advise the candidate to extract from it two or three key articles andthen move on to something else.

A good examiner might also make such a conversation the opportunity tothink a little about what the candidate would do differently in their researchnext time: encourage them to think candidly about what they enjoyed aboutthe process and what they did not; and suggest that there might be alterna-tive approaches, or areas of research, that would suit them better. A studentwho has undertaken a broad survey of a particular field might, for example,be better suited to something more densely focused; similarly, someone whohas worked closely with texts might have revealed themselves to be more of aconceptual thinker or theorist. The essence of a happy and productiveresearch career is, after all, for the individual to get to know his or herstrengths, weaknesses and limits. Too many people go on ploughing thefurrow that was their PhD because they believe that its field, or approach, hassomehow determined their future: it hasn’t (as is witnessed by the large num-bers of brilliant scholars working in fields very far removed from their PhDs).

5.17 Inviting the supervisor to attend thediscussions concerning the corrections

If the candidate’s supervisor has not been present during the viva, someexaminers may choose to invite them into the room at the end to witness thediscussion concerning the corrections.

Bearing in mind all that was said in 5.13, this is very much to berecommended. By the end of the viva the candidate is often exhausted, oreuphoric, or both, and is unlikely to be well positioned to take in all that isbeing said to him or her.

5.18 Congratulating the candidate

The most important advice? Do not forget to do it! Bearing in mind how mixedup and confused many candidates allegedly feel even when they have


notionally ‘passed’, it is important to signal their success in as visible andemphatic a way as possible (see Murray 2003a: 140–1; Tinkler and Jackson2004: 204–11). The dignified formality of a handshake is certainly appropri-ate here, as are words of respect and congratulation. By ‘passing’ his or herviva, the candidate has effectively joined the academic community and is nowyour peer. Although this is unlikely to sink in with them for some time, aformal ritual of congratulation tends to be remembered, retrospectively, as alandmark moment.

This manner of formal congratulation is even more necessary in situationswhere the candidate has had a tough viva and/or been sent away to docorrections. As already observed, such candidates often come back to theirsupervisors asking if they have ‘really’ passed. It is up to the examiners to makeit very clear that a pass subject to corrections is still a pass and something tobe celebrated.

5.19 ‘Going to lunch’: etiquette and usualpractice following the viva

What do examiners, candidates and supervisors do after the viva has beencompleted? The answer is that there is no standard practice, with conven-tions once again varying from person to person, department to departmentand institution to institution.

Assuming that the external examiner does not have to head off immediately(which they often do), it is fairly common for them to be invited to lunchwith the internal and chair. Sometimes the supervisor will join this group,and sometimes the candidate themselves.

Including the supervisor and candidate in the plans for such an eventmakes it somewhat high-risk, however. Even those vivas which look likeforegone conclusions can go wrong; more to the point, candidates who haveofficially ‘passed’ are often exhausted and deflated.

A safer and possibly preferable strategy is for the examiners (and chair) togo for a meal together, and for the supervisor and candidate to ‘debrief’ anddo the same.

It should be said that some departments are far more celebratorythan others when it comes to vivas. Sometimes the supervisor, director ofpostgraduate study and fellow graduate students will all be waiting with abottle of champagne and bouquet of flowers, and may invite the examinersto participate in a celebratory drink. Indeed, this is just another feature ofhigher degree examining that requires the examiner to be ready – and smiling– for any eventuality!

The viva 97

6After the viva

This final chapter combines advice on the practicalities associated with theend of the viva (e.g. when, and in what form, you are expected to submit yourpost-viva report) with discussion of the various likely follow-up scenariosaccording to the nature of the ‘corrections’ and/or the practice of differentinstitutions. There are likely to be significant variations in most of thesepractices, and readers are once again advised to check local regulationscarefully.

6.1 Filling in the post-viva report

There is generally much less formality associated with the post-viva reportthan the pre-viva one, and it is less common for candidates and supervisors tobe sent a copy (although data protection laws now mean that they canrequest one if they so wish). It is common for examiners to do this jobdirectly after the viva – especially in straightforward, ‘successful’ cases – sothat the paperwork is out of the way. For this reason, the reports are alsooften handwritten.

Some institutions give examiners the right to file a co-authored post-vivareport, though most individuals (if given the option) still find it easier towrite their own. At Oxford, where there is no official pre-viva report as such,examiners are expected to submit a comprehensive joint report post viva(see 3.9 for details). With the assistance of computer technology and emailthis is no longer the challenge it once was, and in my experience the internalexaminer undertakes to ‘cut and paste’ pre- and post-viva documents intoone integrated document without too much difficulty.

In those institutions which place most emphasis on the pre-viva report,however, the content of the post-viva report tends to be factual and to thepoint. It will comment, first, on the candidate’s performance generally,before going on to consider (selected) points of detail that were raised andhow they were dealt with. In the case of successful vivas, the tone tends to be

complimentary (e.g. ‘The candidate responded well to questioning . . .’).However, in instances where the viva was of vital importance in testing acandidate on a certain point, you should make this point explicitly (e.g. ‘Thecandidate satisfied us entirely in her response to our questioning on X . . .’).Indeed, it is always good practice to pick up on areas of concern raised inyour pre-viva report.

In cases where the decision is less clear cut (see 6.2) and/or there arecorrections to be made, the summary may be more complex. However,examiners are reminded that both the list of errata and more substantivecorrections will be submitted under separate cover. The post-viva report isnot normally the place to outline in detail what you wish the candidate to doto improve the thesis: this detailed guidance is normally sent to the Post-graduate Registry within a couple of weeks of the viva after both examinershave approved it. Similarly, the list of errata should be delivered to theRegistry in the form of a separate document (although many examinershand a further copy to the candidate on the day of the viva which is certainlyuseful for candidates who only have minor corrections and need to get themdone as quickly as possible).

A typical post-viva report, then, may consist of no more than two to threeshort paragraphs, in the case of straightforward outcomes or, in the case oftheses with referrals or major corrections, outline broadly where the problemsare and indicate that detailed instructions will follow in due course.

6.2 What to do if you suspect foul play

There is no knowing exactly when in the examination process you mightbegin to suspect that foul play is afoot, but I have chosen to deal with it atthis point since it is the moment when a suspicious examiner will be mostobviously put on the spot about what to do. The focus here is specifically onconcerns regarding the examining itself and not on plagiarism which hasalready been dealt with in 3.8 and 5.9.

For those examiners who have agreed to go ahead with a viva even thoughthey have had doubts about (for example) the neutrality of their fellowexaminers, the moment when the candidate leaves the room in order for afinal decision to be made is likely to be a tense one. If their suspicions havebeen confirmed, rather than quashed, it will take a steady nerve to withstandthe disputation and grief that is likely to ensue.

The worst scenario of this kind is probably the one in which the otherexaminer and yourself are in disagreement as to the merits of the thesis and– assuming that she or he is trying to pass the work with some category ofminor corrections – you also suspect that she or he may be in collusion withthe candidate and/or their supervisor (see Scenario 3 in the Introduction).

If this seems improbable in a professional world where colleagues areknown, by and large, to take their ethical responsibilities very seriously, it iscertainly not unknown. Indeed, the scenarios depicted here and in the

After the viva 99

Introduction are all based on real life experience. They should also serve toremind colleagues of the less extreme – but equally troubling – instances ofcoercion that surround doctoral examination. In other words, while the‘worst case’ scenario presented is one in which the other examiner wishes topass a thesis which you believe to be seriously substandard and/or plagiar-ized, there are plenty of instances in which you might be ‘leant upon’ tocome to a more positive decision than you think the candidate deserves by anexaminer you suspect of ‘doing a favour’ for either candidate or supervisor.

What should you do? This question takes us back to the stage in theexamination process when you wrote the pre-viva report and underlines,again, its importance. Providing you were explicit in your reservations aboutthe thesis at that stage – even if you stopped short of accusing the candidateof malpractice – it will, of course, be easier to stand your ground. If you havealready confided your doubts and fears to someone in the PostgraduateRegistry and discussed your options, better still. If, on the other hand, yourpre-viva report was ambiguous and/or you have kept your doubts and fearsto yourself, it may be difficult to withstand the pressure of your oppositenumber, especially if they are the external examiner and you are theinternal. A brave examiner may still be prepared to ‘have it out’ and insistthat the case be referred back to the Registry, but the types of malpracticehighlighted here – i.e. professional collusion and plagiarism – are notori-ously hard to prove. Indeed, the former will, in most instances, be impossibleto prove.

For this reason, my advice to examiners who feel strongly that they areunder pressure to pass a thesis that is unworthy, is to focus on the mostevident examples of weakness in the thesis itself and make these the basisof your objections. If the moment of confrontation is withheld until thecandidate leaves the room you must be prepared to stand your ground andstate firmly that you do not agree with the verdict of your fellow examiner. Ifa chair is present, this objection may, of course, be addressed to them.

Although this may not be stated in the guidelines sent to you in advance ofthe viva, most institutional regulations include provision for a thesis to bereferred to a second external after the viva if the verdict is in doubt. Providingyou state your reservations clearly in the post-viva report this should be theautomatic course of action for the Postgraduate Registry. Another route, ofcourse, is to persuade the other examiner to agree to some category ofreferral or major corrections; this might entail less direct conflict on the dayand, if backed up by a suitably circumspect post-viva report, will pave the wayfor you to request another examiner to be brought in after the thesis hasbeen resubmitted (if you are still not assured). A supporting letter to theRegistry expressing your concerns might also be in order here.

Aside from the numerous possibilities for general misbehaviour dealt within 1.8, the opportunities for more serious forms of foul play are mercifullyfew and far between. One other possibility worth mentioning, however, is thepotential collusion of two examiners against a third in those instances wheretwo externals (or, indeed, two internals) have been appointed. Hence,


admitting more bodies to the viva process does not always increase thechances of fair play. Indeed, colleagues who operate in the North Americansystem confirm that suspicious ‘alignments’ of examiners are not altogetherunknown on their panels. Any judgement which involves a vote incurs therisk of lobbying.

6.3 Changes and corrections: what you need tosend the candidate and by when

More substantive changes and corrections are sent to the candidate sometime after the viva, via the Postgraduate Registry. Indeed, it is vital that youdo this by this formal route, since many institutions now have a policy not ‘tostart the clock ticking’ until after these reports have been officially received.The reason for this is that too many candidates have complained about their3–12-month resubmission period being unfairly eroded by the late submis-sion of the lists of corrections. It is good practice to get your correctionsback to the Registry within two weeks of the viva (and to remember that youwill have first to confer with the other examiner about exactly what you haveasked for), or, at least, to let the Registry know immediately if there is goingto be a delay.

It should be obvious why these corrections should not be sent directly toeither the candidate or their supervisor. Although the supervisor as well asthe candidate will need a copy, it is much better that the Registry takes careof this to ensure that the ‘received’/‘sent’ dates are officially logged.

However, there is also a tradition of providing candidates with lists of moreminor corrections and typos in the viva. The bottom line, however, is that youmust send a copy to the Registry also: that way responsibility for what happensnext is out of your hands.

6.4 Procedures for examining majorcorrections and referrals

In the case of major corrections and referrals, detailing the amendmentsto be made to a thesis may prove a massive undertaking. Indeed, examinersto whom this task falls are liable to swear that they will never accept theinvitation to examine a PhD again!

The reason why these corrections have to be recorded with such detail andprecision is the ever-present threat of litigation: institutions have to be seento be giving both a clear explication of what is wrong with the thesis (i.e. whyit failed) and to be providing their candidates with explicit instructions ofwhat needs to be done for it to pass. Anything that is in any way vague,fudged or ambiguous will give the candidate grounds for a subsequentappeal (i.e. it wasn’t clear what was needed to be done; the candidate

After the viva 101

thought they had done what was asked etc.). And this is another reason, ofcourse, why so many weaker PhDs are passed without corrections: examinerswho have been through this particular mill before are understandablyreluctant to go there again.

Indeed, with respect to the more extreme cases, examiners may well endup feeling they have done the work of the candidate’s supervisor – albeitbelatedly (and for no extra payment). At its worst, compiling the correctionsfor a PhD that requires a serious rewrite can represent days of work; and yourlist of errata may run into tens of pages (an exceedingly weak ‘MA byresearch’ which spawned 31 such pages comes to mind!).

Having said this, the list of corrections and suggestions sent to the candidateshould be as concise and specific as possible. Rather than raise a point gener-ally, you should point to a particular example and demonstrate what needsto be done to correct it.

If new or further research is required, this should also be spelt out asexplicitly as possible. For example, if the research requires more archivalwork, name the archives; if more experiments are needed, name theexperiments. This may well feel like spoon-feeding (and a further indicationof why the thesis failed), but it is precisely the level of instruction theexaminer is obliged to give if he or she commits the thesis to a referral.

6.5 On receipt of the corrected thesis

As has been indicated in this book on many previous occasions, what exactlyconstitutes ‘corrections’ and what a ‘referral’ will vary tremendously frominstitution to institution (see 2.7). However, any category of correction thatrequires the substantive rewriting of sections of the thesis is likely to bereturned to both examiners for reassessment and, by implication, will requireseveral hours of checking. Your task will be made appreciably easier if thecandidate has had the foresight to mark (with yellow stickers or paperinserts) the sections that have been revised. Since pagination will inevitablybe changed in the revised version, it helps enormously to have the keysections pointed out to you. (Indeed, you might well choose to request this ofthe candidate at the end of the viva; most are happy to oblige.)

Once you have identified where in the revised thesis you need to look,your task is obviously to check the text carefully against the corrections youhave requested. What this checking exactly involves will vary hugely fromdiscipline to discipline, but this is where (for all disciplines) the explicitnessof your original request becomes absolutely vital. If you were not altogetherclear in your instructions, it may be impossible to demand a definitiveresponse. In the humanities, for example, it has been known for examinersto complain that an argument is ‘still lacking in sophistication’ or that ‘thecandidate has reached their intellectual ceiling’, and yet – unless this couldbe actively demonstrated in some way – the criticism would be unlikely tohold if the case went to appeal.


All of us who become frequent higher degree examiners will, sadly,encounter candidates and theses which aren’t quite up to it for whateverreason, but unless we learn to convey our concerns with explicit, and specific,examples for improvement we will be obliged to allow poorly correctedtheses through the net.

It is also important for you to confer with your fellow examiner(s) aboutwhether, and to what extent, the corrections are satisfactory. Even thougheach of you might have asked for a different set of corrections, you shouldnevertheless have agreed and approved them together beforehand and, atthis point, be prepared to cross-check each set. Indeed, it is usual for exam-iners to be in phone or email correspondence again at this stage of theexamination process and to arrive at a clear, joint decision before returningthe completed paperwork to the Registry.

It is also important to remember that your options with regard to thisdecision will necessarily be more limited than they were after the first exam-ination. Clearly you must check the paperwork for the institution concerned,but (for a ‘full referral’) typical choices are as follows:

• that the degree of PhD be awarded forthwith;• that subject to minor amendments (made to the satisfaction of the

examiners) the degree of PhD be awarded;• that no degree be awarded;• that the degree of M.Phil be awarded.

You should note, in particular, that if a second viva was not requested at thetime the first decision was submitted, it will be too late to call for one now.

6.6 Approval of minor corrections: normalprocedures and variables

With respect to minor corrections (see 2.7 for some definitions), it ismore usual for the internal examiner alone to check the amendments. Thisdecision is normally made at the time of the viva and declared on thepost-viva report form. However, it remains the external examiner’s right tosee minor corrections and if they have a particular concern over any part ofthe resubmission they may invoke it.

This is also the moment to remind readers of the ‘intermediate category’of correction discussed in 2.7. Normally entailing a correction period ofthree to six months maximum, this category allows for ‘correction at thelevel of the sentence’ (or short paragraph) as well as typos, but is not supposedto include more substantive rewriting (or, indeed, research). What exactlycounts as ‘substantive’ remains, of course, a grey area, and (where institutionspermit this option) increasing numbers of examiners are selecting it out ofkindness to their candidates.

While it is true that the three- six to month correction option is normallythought of as a category of ‘pass’ rather than a ‘referral’ it is not unknown

After the viva 103

for some fairly serious alterations to be requested under its remit. Theremight include (for example) rewrites to sections of the abstract, introduc-tion and conclusion as well as any points of detail/accuracy that needcleaning up.

This is not to suggest that there is necessarily anything ‘wrong’ withthis category of correction, or with examiners for selecting it: merely that itcan sometimes be stretched beyond its proper limits. So, once again, bewarned: unless your instructions are crystal clear, and you have reasonableconfidence in your candidate to make the incisive interventions needed, youmight find yourself in the position of wanting to ‘properly’ refer a thesis youhave previously ‘provisionally passed’. Most regulations will enable you tomake the request for further corrections at this point, but a belated referralis not an option. At the very least, it will require the internal (if they alonewere responsible for assessing the revisions) to send the revised thesis to theother examiner(s) and request their opinion. The verdict of all the examin-ers will then have to be fed back to the Postgraduate Registry who will decidehow to proceed. If the examiners are in conspicuous disagreement aboutthe standard of the corrections, for example, an additional external maybe brought in; if they are in agreement, a decision will have to be madeabout how long the candidate needs to revise the thesis – again. Remember:putting a thesis through for corrections in a tighter timeframe than isreally needed may be doing no one any favours in the end. Think carefullyabout how long you think this particular candidate needs, not how long youmight need.

6.7 Re-examining the thesis: a second viva?

Some referrals are deemed to require a second viva. This option is actuallyavailable to all referrals, but is usually only invoked in those cases where oneor all the examiners feel that the corrections to be made are so substantive asto effectively render the thesis a new piece of work. Tinkler and Jackson(2004: 212) note that some examiners also believe that a second viva offers‘ritualistic (and developmental) opportunities to the candidate that were notpossible at the first one’.

Second vivas are nevertheless rare, and whether the candidate is successfula second time around will depend largely on whether the original weaknesswas due to a misjudged project and/or poor supervision (e.g. the candidatenot having undertaken the type/range/depth of research necessary to‘prove’ his or her thesis) or because they had (to invoke a phrase usedearlier) ‘reached their intellectual ceiling’.

As all supervisors will know, there are sometimes limits to how far you cango in explaining, and demonstrating, a difficult point to a struggling student.With the best will in the world, some students will simply not be able toengage with their data at the level necessary for doctoral research and – shortof you writing the whole text for them – will never make the grade. The fact


that this ‘limit’ should have been picked up by their supervisors and institu-tions earlier (at the M.Phil/PhD upgrade) is a discussion for elsewhere but,every year, and for a wide range of reasons, a small minority of such studentswill be required to attend a second viva and – in all probability – will failagain.

Participating in a second viva (whether as an examiner or a chair) in whichthe candidate is unlikely to redeem a substandard resubmission is not ahappy experience. If, in advance of the viva, the examiners feel strongly thatthe candidate has still not done enough to bring the thesis up to the requiredstandard, they may well wish to check through all their options with thePostgraduate Registry in advance. While the candidate must, of course, begiven the opportunity to defend him or herself in accordance with the rulesof all vivas (first or second), the examiners should think hard about whatsorts of questions go to the heart of the (unresolved) question. In a human-ities subject this may, for example, be a failure to lift the discussion from thelevel of ‘description’ to ‘analysis’, in which case you must design a questionthat will (hopefully) make this as clear to the candidate as it is to you.

Needless to say, the majority of candidates who go through the stressand humiliation of a second viva only to have it fail again are likely to: (a)strenuously resist the verdict; (b) blame the supervisor/institution for notpreparing or supporting them properly; or (c) go to appeal. The meticulousconduct of the examiners at the second viva is therefore even more import-ant than at the first, not least because many of the cases that go to appeal willend up taking issue with the examination process (including the viva) as wellas the supervisor. Needless to say, it is absolutely vital that a second viva is chaired– and by someone experienced in doctoral examination. Indeed, it mightalso be a good opportunity to invoke your institution’s practice on other‘monitoring’ possibilities such as the tape-recorder (see 5.13).

The decisions available to the examiner after a second viva are, in essence,likely to be the same as those cited for a resubmission generally. The differ-ence is, of course, that the candidate will have to be given this ‘final word’in person: a pretty unenviable task if the news is bad.

Into the first and second categories of ‘pass forthwith’ or ‘pass with minorcorrections’ will go that small minority of students who were always capableof producing a good PhD but whose research had become ‘misdirected’ forwhatever reason; into the third (‘no degreee to be awarded’) will go thosestudents who should never have been allowed to proceed to a PhD in the firstplace and for whom the department and university may well end up takingsome responsibility; into the fourth (‘pass as M.Phil’) will often go theunfortunate category of student mentioned earlier: those whose work mayinitially have shown potential but who have since shown themselves ‘notquite up to it’. Indeed, the distinction between the (original) thesis notbeing ‘of doctoral standard’ and the candidate not being ‘of doctoralstandard’ usually becomes very stark at the second viva: strong candidateswith problematic theses can, in the course of a year, redeem themselves; weakcandidates cannot.

After the viva 105

6.8 Complaints and appeals: are you involved?

What are the options available, then, to a candidate whose thesis has beenfailed or downgraded following a resubmission? What is involved in anappeal? And are you, as an examiner, involved?

Needless to say, the regulations surrounding appeals at higher degreelevel vary significantly from institution to institution and whether the(original) examiners are involved or not will depend, primarily, on thenature of the complaint.

The first thing that both candidates and examiners should be aware of isthat, in the British university system, the awarding institution normally hasthe sole authority to determine whether or not a higher degree should beawarded to a particular candidate. In other words, there is no furtherarbitrator (e.g. a national QAA body) to whom the case can be referred fora second (or third) decision. Indeed, beyond the ‘appeal’ process itself(described below) the only other person/body to whom the candidatecan take his or her case is the ‘University Visitor’ (who, until recently, wasHM the Queen).1 Needless to say, few candidates pursue their grievancethis far.

The second thing for all candidates and examiners to bear in mind is that,although many universities refer to these complaints against higher degreedecisions as ‘appeals’, strictly they are not (because they cannot result in‘vice-chancellor action’). Indeed, any complaint brought by a candidateconcerning a higher degree examination is better understood in just thoseterms (i.e. as a ‘complaint’) with the further understanding that it candirected only be to issues of procedure. At no stage is the candidate entitled todispute the academic judgement of the examiners (even if the case does endup going to the Visitor/ombudsman’s Office). (Readers should also bereminded that a candidate may take his or her case to ‘appeal’ after the firstviva if a categorical decision was taken there and then to fail or downgradethe degree.)

At most UK institutions ‘complaints’ may be considered on the followinggrounds:

1 that there were circumstances affecting the student’s performance ofwhich the examiners had not been made aware when their decisionwas taken;

2 that there were serious irregularities in the conduct of the examination,or in the process whereby the examiners reached their decision, whichmight have caused a different decision to be arrived at had they notoccurred;

3 that the examiners’ recommendation was not in accordance with theapproved assessment regulations.

It is only the second and third of these grounds that actually hold theexaminers responsible for the contested result. Sheffield Hallam Universityalso makes a clear statement that: ‘Disagreement with the academic judge-


ment of examiners in agreeing awards cannot in itself constitute grounds forappeal’ (Sheffield Hallam University 2002).

At most UK universities, the normal procedure for dealing with such acomplaint is first to invite the candidate to make a written report and then tocall them before a review panel.2 Some universities invite their examiners toprepare a new, summarizing document for the panel, although it is alsopossible for the examiners simply to approve the use of their original report.(It is also possible that the examiners will be invited to respond to the candi-date’s own written submission before the review panel takes place.) It isnot, however, normal for the examiners to actually appear at the panel sinceits purpose is understood to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Thepurpose of the panel is for its members (consisting of Registry personnel and‘disinterested’ fellow academics) to arrive at a final judgement, independentof both parties.

The recommendations of the review panel may include the following(based on Lancaster University 2003):

• to approve the decision of the examiners, in which case the decision isfinal;

• to recommend to the examiners that they should reconsider their action(in the light of clearly stated reasons);

• to declare the examination null and void and to request a newexamination.

Here it is important to note that in those instances where the panel decidethat a fresh examination is in order it is also normal to appoint new examiners.Should the case fall into the second category listed above, however, theexaminers will be required to return to the thesis and consider revisingtheir judgement in the light of the new evidence. Whether this is an easy oragonizing task will, of course, depend on the specifics of the case. Examinerswho are put in this position should, however, be aware that they are notobliged to alter their decision if it goes against their conscience.

We must all hope that few of us will ever be involved in this difficultsituation; higher degrees which go to appeal are mercifully rare.

6.9 Claiming fees and expenses

Although most higher degree examiners consider their fees laughably small(see 2.4), you will nevertheless want to make sure you receive what you areentitled to.

External examiners who are also claiming travelling expenses sometimeslike to hand all their forms to the internal examiner (or other departmentalofficer) on the day of the exam to ensure that train tickets etc. don’t get lost;however, because most institutions now require receipts for every part ofyour claim, it is probably best to submit everything once you are safely home.Sadly, I do mean everything – even down to the last cup of tea. You should also

After the viva 107

be aware that it is common practice for external examiners to pay for theiraccommodation and/or university-hosted dinners themselves, and thenclaim it back later. Indeed, there is often confusion and embarrassment atthe meal when your host – the internal examiner and/or the candidate’ssupervisor – asks nervously if you are prepared to do this! Confronting thesituation yourself at the start of the meal may at least spare you all the furtherembarrassment of having to ask for a separate receipt at the end.

Examiners are reminded once again that their fees are liable to tax. Mostinstitutions will deduct standard rate tax at source but, if they do not (or ifyou are a higher-rate taxpayer) you should declare this income on yourannual tax return. (Well, as was observed at the beginning of this book, noone would do this job for the money!)

6.10 Writing references for the candidate andhelping with subsequent publication plans

One of the unacknowledged consequences of agreeing to examine a higherdegree – especially as an external – is that you are likely to become a firstchoice of referee for candidates who go on to pursue academic careers.Indeed, you may end up being a candidate’s principal referee for manyyears, if not for a whole lifetime. This, of course, says much retrospectivelyabout the status and importance of the external examiner. Recalling that youwere probably chosen because of your own reputation as a distinguishedscholar in the candidate’s field, it is hardly surprising that your name willcontinue to be invoked in this way (especially if the candidate saw a favourablepre-viva report by you).

Accepting the mark of distinction that has been afforded them, mostexternal examiners agree to act as referees with good grace – which is not tosay that it is a task that should be undertaken lightly. Junior academics whohave not yet written references on behalf of their peers are advised to asktheir senior colleagues for examples of the genre. Writing a reference for afellow academic applying for a university post is not the same as writing areference for a postgraduate student. Letters of recommendation at thislevel are typically two (single-spaced) pages long (i.e. over 1000 words) andwill comment on the candidate’s research and publications in detail. Beenthusiastic in your praise. It is worth noting that US references are signifi-cantly more ‘inflated’ in their praise of candidates than UK ones, thoughthere is evidence of increased ‘spin’ across the board. Whether or not youapprove of such rhetorical practice, you need to be aware of it since anycomments that resemble the cautious or lukewarm may be read by theappointment committee as a ‘coded’ sign of your lack of confidence in thecandidate.

This brings us to an even more important point: if you do not feel ableto give the candidate a first-class, unequivocal reference you should thinkseriously about agreeing to do it. All those of us who have served on


appointment committees know how a brief, cursory or half-hearted referencecan bring down a candidate and (unless you feel you have a moral obligationto warn institutions off the candidate in question) you could help your moremediocre examinees by suggesting that they try somebody else. Finding anexcuse for this might not be easy, but it will still be better than spending thenext ten years writing references for someone whose work you considerrather less than inspired.

Don’t use your pre-viva report instead of a proper reference. While thetemptation to use this document is understandably strong (especially if theviva was recent), it tends to display a certain disrespect for the candidate asa person and suggests that you haven’t taken the time to reflect upon theirCV or application more generally. There is an associated issue here, ofcourse, about keeping up to date with the candidate’s progress as the yearsgo on. Assuming that you may well be called upon to supply references upto ten years after the viva, you really will need to read the CV and letterthat are sent to you with each new application. While it is clearly thecandidate’s responsibility to supply you with this information, it is yourresponsibility to make good use of it in your reference. Moreover, if thepoint is reached when the candidate’s research and/or career havebecome impossibly remote (they may have moved into a radically differentarea, for example) it is probably time to quit. Advise the candidate kindlythat there are now others better positioned than you to vouch for theirsuccess.

6.11 Learning from the experience: debriefing

As has been acknowledged at several points in the course of this book, littleattention has yet been paid to the intellectual and emotional turmoil that anexaminer might experience after a PhD viva. While the student’s experienceof this most unique of examination processes is now beginning to be spokenabout, that of the examiner is as yet unheard. The fact that it takes years ofexperience supervising and examining higher degrees before you have anyreal sense of the range of things that might happen in a viva is unacknow-ledged. Because all examiners are, by definition, considered ‘experts’, noone has stopped to ask the obvious question: ‘expert in what?’ As this bookwill hopefully have shown, expertise in a subject area is not the only expertiseneeded for successful higher degree examining. It is another skill thatacademics have to learn and, as with so many others, one for which we getlittle, or no, training.

Given the absence of formal, institutional structures of support, Irecommend that all new – or relatively new – higher degree examiners seekout the support of a senior, and experienced, colleague. Not only can theyuse such a person to talk through the complexities of the case before the vivabut, even more crucially, they can act as a sounding board afterwards. Evenin straightforward cases, there is almost always something to be learned from

After the viva 109

a higher degree examination (not least because of the infinitely differentways in which the viva is conducted), and in cases in which the event wasrather less than happy, a debriefing on what was difficult and why can beextremely useful.

The viva that is likely to cause the most negative fallout for the examiner isinevitably the one in which she or he believes justice has not been done. Thismay be justice explicitly in terms of the result (a candidate passed too easily,or failed/demoted unfairly or – more subtly – in terms of the ‘total’ vivaexperience). With a few exceptions, we can assume that most academicswould like the whole doctoral process to be a meaningful learning experi-ence, and for the examination to be a part of that process – not a simple testof competence and authenticity. For that reason, a disappointing viva mightwell be one in which a candidate passes, but in which the project’s mostserious contribution to knowledge never gets discussed. Unfortunately,the varied personalities of examiners means that (under our presenttwo-examiner system) there will always be vivas at which the agenda is drivenby one of the examiners’ egos, at the expense of both the candidate and thethesis. As was indicated earlier, this is a situation which can leave the otherexaminer as well as the candidate seriously depressed and disappointed. It isalso, I would suggest, a situation to be learned from. If you suffer this sort ofinappropriate domination from your fellow examiner at one viva, you willcertainly be better prepared when it happens again. True, you will never beable to completely subdue such personalities (especially if you are theinternal examiner), but you might nevertheless find ways of redeemingthe examination for the student; possibly by gently (or not so gently!)nudging the discussion towards those crucial aspects of the thesis that arebeing ignored. Just knowing that you, at least, have recognized the centralpreoccupation of the thesis will mean a good deal to the candidate in suchsituations.

But this has taken us back to one of the worst case examination scenariosdealt with in this book, and I can assure you that – over time – there will bemany more positive ones. Here, indeed, it is salutary to bear in mind thatcandidates who have had a good viva experience are likely to remember it –and you – with affection for the rest of their lives. Indeed, apart from theensuing graduation ceremony it is quite likely to be one of the few momentsin the long years of toil that they do remember with any clarity and – forthose going on to become academics – it will take its place as a symbolic ‘riteof passage’ in which you were one of the benign gatekeepers. Inasmuch asyou almost certainly challenged, and probed, the candidate’s work moredeeply than anyone had done before, you will also command their respectfor years to come. Use it wisely. By admitting your candidate to a PhDyou have effectively admitted them to a fiercely competitive profession –‘academia’ – that will all too quickly reveal to them that the PhD was trulyonly an apprenticeship.

As for your own apprenticeship as a higher degree examiner, it is hopedthat this book will have offered enough support and encouragement for you


to continue with one of the profession’s most vitally important, but sadlyunacknowledged, duties. While we must trust that both individual institu-tions and national bodies will, in due course, do more to support and rewardtheir examiners, the preceding pages should have mitigated some of thepresent isolation. External examining at higher degree level can be fun – butit truly is one of those areas of academic life where you need to go in withyour eyes wide open.

After the viva 111

Notes

Introduction

1 ‘Nit-picking’ is associated with examiners prone to a page-by-page scrutiny ofminor points and details. The phrase is used by Tinkler and Jackson (2004: 184).See also their section on examining styles (pp. 38–9).

Chapter 1

1 My thanks to Professor Hilary Fraser, University College, Birkbeck (London), forher observations on the Australian system. Professor Fraser nevertheless pointsout that, as in the UK, there are significant differences in procedure betweeninstitutions.

Chapter 2

1 The University of Birmingham calls its two-year ‘research M.Phil’ in the Schoolof Historical Studies and the Humanities an ‘M.Litt’, a qualification that alsocontinues to function in its own right at Oxford.

Chapter 3

1 Tinkler and Jackson (2004: 96) estimate that reading a PhD takes ‘roughly fivedays’. This is a reasonable average, but readers should be especially mindful thatfew of us can dedicate whole days to the job and that two or three hours a day overthe course of a week (plus a weekend) is possibly a more realistic timespan.

2 Phillips and Pugh’s own list derives, in part, from an earlier list drawn up by thescientist J.D.R Francis (1976).

3 The ‘Plagiarism Framework’ implemented at Lancaster University during theacademic year 2003/4 makes it clear that plagiarism may not de defined and/or

punished by its ‘intention to deceive’ but only by its failure to properly source andreference material. This has led to much controversy and frustration among aca-demics who, presented with blatant evidence of the former, are convinced that itshould be the punishable offence.

4 As Tinkler and Jackson (2004: 13) make clear, many universities are still reluctantto grant their students easy access to these reports and impose certain restrictions(e.g. the result of the examination being approved by the senate, or the paymentof a fee). Certainly no candidate should have access to their reports until theexamination process is complete.

Chapter 5

1 In the new Framework of Best Practice in the Doctoral Viva implemented by LancasterUniversity in February 2004 this advice has been changed. The chair is nowinstructed to tell the student, at the beginning of the viva, ‘that no informationabout outcomes will be provided until the end of the examination [viva], and thatno conclusions should be drawn from this’ (see Park 2003 for further discussion).

2 The ‘provisionality’ of any recommendations made at the end of the viva are thusspelt out loud and clear in the Oxford regulations. It is the Faculty Board thatmakes the final decision, based on their assessment of the joint examiners’ report,and not the examiners themselves. A similar procedure pertains in most uni-versities in the UK, but few examiners or candidates seem to be aware of it (i.e. therecommendation only becomes a ‘decree’ once it has been endorsed by theBoard or Registry).

3 Lancaster University’s Framework of Best Practice in the Doctoral Viva (2004) recom-mends that ‘each viva should normally be recorded on audiotape or minidisc’,with the assurance that ‘nothing will be done with the audio-record [no one willlisten to it] unless it has to be used in evidence in the event of an appeal/complaint’.

Chapter 6

1 The ‘University Visitor’ system is presently in the process of being replaced by the‘Ombudsman’s Office’ across the British university sector.

2 At Lancaster University it is common practice for the candidate to bring a mem-ber of the Student’s Union with them to the panel. My thanks to Michael Sey-mour, secretary to Lancaster University’s Graduate School, who furnished me withthese details on the higher degree complaints procedure. Readers should, how-ever, be mindful that each institution will have its own system for dealing withthese eventualities.

Notes 113

Bibliography

Institutional guidelines

HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2003) ImprovingStandards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes (informal consultationpaper). www.hefce.ac.uk.

Lancaster University (2003) Examination of Research Degrees: Guidance Notes. Lancaster:Lancaster University Postgraduate Registry.

Lancaster University (2003/4) Postgraduate Handbook. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Lancaster University (2004) Framework of Best Practice in the Doctoral Viva. Lancaster:

Lancaster University Postgraduate Registry.Royal Society of Chemists (1995) The Chemisty PhD – The Enhancement of its Quality.

www.rsc.org.Sheffield Hallam University (2002) Guidance Notes for Research Degree Examinations.

Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Graduate Studies Team.The British Psychological Society (2000) Guidelines for Assessment of the PhD in Psych-

ology and Related Disciplines. www.bps.org.uk.Universities’ and Colleges’ Staff Development Agency (UCoSDA) (1993) Handbook

for External Examiners in Higher Education. Sheffield: UCoSDA and Committee ofVice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom.

University of Birmingham (2003) Guidance Notes for Examiners of Research DegreeTheses. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Student Services/The AcademicOffice.

University of Durham (2001) Instructions to Examiners for the Degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy. Durham: University of Durham Graduate School.

University of Oxford (2001) Memorandum for Examiners for the Degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy. Oxford: University of Oxford Graduate Studies Office.

University of Turku, Finland (2002) Guidelines for the Doctoral Candidate. www.utu.fi.

Books and articles

Baldacchino, G. (1994) Reflections on the status of a doctoral defence, Journal ofGraduate Education, 1(3): 71–6.

Boulter, C. and Denicolo, P. (2002) Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria.Paper presented at the UK Council on Graduate Education Symposium onResearch Degree Examining, 29 April.

Brown, G. and Atkins, M. (1988) Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London:Routledge.

Burnham, P. (1994) Surviving the viva: unravelling the mystery of the PhD oral,Journal of Graduate Education, 1: 30–40.

Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (1988) The British PhD. London: CVCP.Corbett, P.J. and Connors, R.J. (1999) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 4th edn.

New York: Oxford University Press.Cryer, P. (2000) The Research Student’s Guide to Success, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open

University Press.Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (1997) Supervising the PhD: A Guide to Success.

Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open UniversityPress.

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (2000) The Doctoral Experience: Success andFailure in the Graduate School. London: Falmer Press.

Durling, D. (2002) Discourses on research and the PhD in design, Quality Assurance inEducation, 10(2): 79–85.

Francis, J.D.R. (1976) Supervision and examination of higher degree students, Bul-letin of the University of London, 31: 3–6.

Hartley, J. and Fox, C. (2002) The viva experience: examining the examiners, HigherEducation Review, 35(1): 24–30.

Hartley, J. and Jory, S. (2000) Lifting the veil on the viva: the experiences of psych-ology PhD candidates in the UK, Psychology Teaching Review, 9(2): 76–90.

Jackson, C. and Tinkler, P. (2000) The PhD examination: an exercise in community-building and gatekeeping? in I. McNay (ed.) Higher Education and its Communities,pp. 38–50. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and OpenUniversity Press.

Jackson, C. and Tinkler, P. (2001) Back to basics: a consideration of the purposes ofthe PhD viva, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26: 355–66.

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

Morley, L., Leonard, D. and David, M. (2002) Variations in vivas: quality and equalityin British PhD assessments, Studies in Higher Education, 27(3): 263–73.

Mullins, G. and Kiley, M. (2002) It’s a PhD, not a Nobel prize: how experiencedexaminers assess research theses, Studies in Higher Education, 26(4): 369–86.

Murray, R. (1998) The Viva (video and notes). Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.Murray, R. (2002a) How to Write a Thesis. Buckingham: Open University Press.Murray, R. (2002b) What the students want to know: frequently asked questions and

their implications for the viva. Paper presented at the UK Council on GraduateEducation Symposium on Research Degree Examining, 29 April.

Murray, R. (2003a) How to Survive Your Viva. Buckingham: Open University Press.Murray, R. (2003b) Student questions and their implications for the viva, Quality

Assurance in Education, 11(2): 109–13.Park, C. (2003) Levelling the playing field: towards best practice in the doctoral viva,

Higher Education Review, 36(1): 22–44.Partington, J., Brown, G. and Gordon, G. (1993) Handbook for Examiners in Higher

Education. Sheffield: UK Universities Staff Development Unit and the Uni-versities of Kent and Leeds.

Bibliography 115

Pearce, L. (2003) The Rhetorics of Feminism: Readings in Contemporary Cultural Theoryand the Popular Press. London: Routledge.

Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. (1994) How to get a PhD, 2nd edn. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Powell, S. and McCauley, C. (2002) Research degree examining – common principlesand divergent practices, Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2): 104–15.

Salmon, P. (1992) Achieving a PhD: Ten Students’ Experiences. London: Trentham Books.Shaw, M. (2002) Benchmarking standards in research degrees. Paper presented at

the UK Council on Graduate Education Symposium on Research Degree Exam-ining, 29 April.

Shaw, M. and Green, H. (2002) Benchmarking the PhD – a tentative beginning,Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 10(2): 116–24.

Simpson, R. (1983) How the PhD Came to Britain: A Century of Struggle for PostgraduateEducation. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education and theUniversity of Surrey.

Skeggs, B. (ed.) (1995) Feminist Cultural Theory: Process and Production. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2000) Examining the doctorate: institutional policy andthe PhD examination process in Britain, Studies in Higher Education, 25(2):167–80.

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

Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2004) The Doctoral Examination Process: A Handbook forStudents, Examiners and Supervisors. Buckingham: Society for Research in HigherEducation and Open University Press.

Trafford, V. and Leshem, S. (2002a) Questions in a doctoral viva: views from theinside. Paper presented at the UK Council for Graduate Education Symposiumon Research Degree Examining, 29 April.

Trafford, V. and Lesham, S. (2002b) Anatomy of a doctoral viva, Journal of GraduateEducation, 3: 33–41.

Underwood, S. (1999) What is a PhD? Towards a Discussion Paper. Lancaster: HigherEducation Development Centre.

Wakeford, J. (2002) What goalposts? Guardian, 17 September: 35.Wakeford, J. (2004) PhDs: what goalposts? Seminar on higher degree examining

presented at the Missenden Centre for the Development of Higher Education.www.missendencentre.co.uk.

Wallace, S. and Marsh, C. (2001) Trial by ordeal or the chummy game? Six casestudies in the conduct of the British PhD viva examination, International HigherEducation Review, 34(1): 35–59.

Wisker, G. (2001) The Postgraduate Research Handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

116 Bibliography

Index

Abstract (of theses), 49, 50, 51–2, 75, 78,95, 104

Appeals, 44, 82, 92, 101, 105, 106–7

Bribery, 27See also foul play

BPS (British Psychological Society),21–2, 23, 35, 36, 66, 71

Bullying, 7, 27, 70, 79, 88, 91, 93See also examiners, dominant

CandidateBreaking down, 90–1, 92Congratulation of, 80, 96–7Career/professional development of,

95–6, 108–9, 110See also criticism (constructive)

Garrulousness of, 91Humiliation of, 4–5Right of appeal, 106–7

Chair (of viva), 5, 6, 8, 10, 15–16, 20, 22,35, 66, 69, 81, 82–4, 87–8, 89, 91–2,93, 97, 100, 105

CorrectionsMajor corrections, 8, 42, 43, 45, 67, 69,

74, 101–103Minor corrections, 3, 6, 42, 43, 44, 45,

46, 50, 67, 69, 94–5, 98–9, 103–4Criticism (constructive), 2, 8, 63, 68,

79–80, 95–6, 110

Data protection act, 62, 66, 98Degrees (Higher)

Assessment guidelines, 24, 37–42, 52,54, 56

Results/recommendation guidelines,42–6

Disciplinary differences, 24–5, 52, 53, 56,58, 63, 74, 102

DoctoratesProfessional, 17–18‘New route’, 18Practice-based, 18–19See also PhD

Egos (of examiners), 1, 4, 9, 28, 34, 64,79, 80, 81, 110

Examiners, 2, 4, 12, 15, 19–21, 24, 27, 51,80–2, 91, 94–5, 105, 106–7

Additional, 69, 70, 81–2, 100Appointment of, 21, 27, 27–8, 30–46,

47, 80Dinner with, 36, 86, 97Disagreement between, 24, 48, 56,

69–70, 81, 99–101, 107–8Domination (of one by the other), 6,

7, 28, 31, 80, 82, 83, 99–101, 110External, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19–20,

28, 77–8, 79, 80–1, 82, 103Internal, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19–20, 65,

80–1, 89, 91–2, 93, 97, 103–4Lunch with, 36, 84, 97Making contact with, 65, 85, 86Rivalry between, 62, 80Youth/inexperience of, 5, 6, 27, 30,

70, 72, 81, 108, 109–110Examining

In UK (practice and policy), 1, 9–10,11–29, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 53, 55, 65,79, 82, 83–4, 85, 88

Variable practice in, 24, 35–6, 42, 46

Failed theses, see thesesFees and expenses, 35–7, 107–8Foul play, 5–7, 26, 27, 31, 58–60, 99–101,

110See also plagiarism

Guidelines, 9, 22, 26–7, 30, 34, 37, 76,100

For appointment of examiners(Lancaster), 33

For award of M.Phil (Birmingham), 41For award of M.Phil (Lancaster), 40–1For award of PhD (Lancaster), 38–9BPS (British Psychological

Association), 21–2, 35, 36, 66, 71For conduct of the oral examination

(Lancaster), 88For conduct of the oral examination

(Oxford), 89For dispensing with oral examination

(Sheffield Hallam), 71For examiners of degree of D.Phil

(Oxford), 39For ‘final recommendations’

(Birmingham), 43–4For ‘final recommendations’

(Lancaster), 42–3For ‘final recommendations’

(Sheffield Hallam), 45Issued by HEFCE (Higher Education

Funding Council), 10–21Instructions to examiners (Durham),

39, 44–5For ‘new-route’ PhDs (Lancaster),

18For practice-based PhDs (Lancaster),

18–19At Sheffield Hallam, 25, 33, 42, 45, 67,

70, 106–7

HEFCE (Higher Education FundingCouncil of England), 11, 19–21, 23,42

Humiliation, 4–5, 28, 75, 78, 105

Jealousy, 3–5, 28

Knowledge of the field, see questions

Litigation, 11, 34, 40, 93, 101

Master of Philosophy (M.Phil), 11, 12,16–17, 24, 27, 37, 40–1, 45, 47, 55,57, 59, 68, 90

Master of Arts (M.A.)(by research), 17,37, 41, 44, 45, 54, 57, 68

Master of Arts (M.A.) (taught), 21,23,34,

Methodology, see questionsMock-viva, see vivaMurray, R., 16, 23, 73, 76–7, 84, 90, 91, 97

Nit-picking (by examiners), 2, 4, 26, 75‘New-route PhD’, see doctorates

Originality (in thesis), 13, 18, 19, 25, 37,38, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54–7, 59–60,61–2, 72

See also questionsOverseas students, 17, 26–7Oxbridge, 10, 15, 35, 36, 38, 39–40, 46,

61, 80, 85, 87, 88–9, 98

Panel (examiners as), 19–20, 21, 23, 25,90, 92, 100

Park, C., 6, 16, 22Personal favour (becoming examiner

as), 7, 27, 31, 100PhD (Doctor of Philosophy)

Definition of, 11, 12, 24, 27, 37–42, 56Disciplinary differences, in, 24–5Experimental, 5, 52–3Length of, 17, 18, 19, 25, 38, 41–2And originality, 13See also Thesis

Phillips, E.M. and D.S. Pugh, 37, 55–6Plagiarism, 58–60, 77, 89, 90, 99, 100Politics (of higher degree examining), 6,

7, 27–9, 50, 54Postgraduate Registry (role of), 5, 33, 60,

65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 83, 84, 90, 92, 94,99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 107

Power-relations (between examiners),10, 28–9, 31, 80, 81–2, 110

See also examiners (disagreementbetween)

Post-viva report, 9, 49, 63, 84, 98–9, 103,108, 109

Pre-viva agenda setting, 7, 65, 85, 86, 89Pre-viva report, 5, 48, 50, 56, 60–4, 65–6,

69, 98–9, 100, 108–9Publication of thesis, 37–8, 39, 40, 57, 61,

63, 95–6

118 Index

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 19–23,32, 34, 42

Questions (when reading thesis)Regarding hypothesis, 51–2, 56Regarding knowledge of field, 57–8Regarding methodology, 53–5Regarding originality, 55–7Regarding stated objectives, 52–3

Questions (for the viva), 34, 53, 58, 66,80, 86, 89–90, 90–2, 95, 99

Regarding hypothesis and argument,74–5

Regarding knowledge of the field,76–7

Opening questions, 72–3Regarding theory and method, 73–4Regarding weakness and ambiguity,

75–6

Reading the thesis, 47–64Re-examination of thesis see second vivaReferral (of thesis), 2, 8, 24, 31, 37, 42–3,

43–4, 45, 46, 63, 68, 69, 74, 86, 93,100, 101–3, 104

Research training (for graduatestudents), 20, 21, 53, 54, 90

Resubmission of thesis, 24, 36, 42–3,43–4, 45, 46, 70–1, 95, 106

Results/recommendations (in finalassessment of thesis) see guidelines

Rivalry (between examiners), 4See also jealousy and examiners

(domination of)

Science PhDs, 25–6, 33, 42, 51, 53, 54, 56,58, 72, 76, 90

Second viva see vivaSpot-checks (of quotations etc for

accuracy), 48, 50Style and presentation, 3, 4, 26, 39, 42,

43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 57, 59, 61, 63,71

Supervisor, 2, 12, 23, 25, 26, 36, 51, 53,58, 62, 69, 73, 98, 104, 105

Role in appointment of examiners,30–2

Collusion with examiner(s), 6, 7,27,99–101

Contact with examiners, 66–7Going to viva lunch/dinner, 97HEFCE guidelines on, 19–20

Humiliation of, 4–5, 28Preparation of candidate, 90Presence at viva, 35, 75, 81, 82–4, 87,

93, 96–7

Tape-recording (of viva), 16, 92–3, 105Thesis

Failed, 2, 5, 37, 52, 56, 68–9, 71, 103Weak/substandard, 2, 24, 30, 31, 69,

75, 100, 102, 103, 105See also abstract, referral and

resubmissionTinkler, P. and C. Jackson, 1, 6, 9, 12, 13,

14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33, 37,49, 62, 66, 68, 73, 75, 77, 80, 82, 97

Typos (in thesis), 46, 47, 49, 50, 61, 63,75, 83, 84, 87, 88, 95, 99, 101

Viva(s), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 27–8Abandoned, 92Advising candidate of result at

beginning of, 4, 81, 86, 88–9In Australia, 15–16‘Bad’, 2, 3, 4, 22, 26, 27–8, 34, 75, 81,

83, 90–1, 93, 106, 110in Canada, 15–16, 84cancellation of, 70–1‘Closed door’ nature of, 2, 12, 16examiners’ preparations for, 77–8in Finland, 14–15in France, 13in Germany, 13‘Good’, 7, 8–9, 79, 95irregularities in, 106–7candidate leaving room at end of, 6, 9,

81, 83, 93–4, 99length of, 22, 25, 88location of, 85, 86–7mock viva, 21, 23, 77in North America, 15–16, 29, 74, 84public nature of (continental

Europe), 13–16, 29, 74, 84as ‘rite of passage’, 14second viva, 36, 44, 45, 103, 104–5supervisor’s participation, in, 96–7in Sweden, 14see also panels, tape-recording, pre-viva

arrangements, questions (for viva)U.K. (higher degree examining in), 9,

10, 19, 27, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 53, 55,65, 79, 82, 83–4, 85–8, 106

Index 119

The Society for Research into Higher Education

How to Examinea Thesis

Rowena Murray

Lynne Pearce

Ho

w to

Ex

amin

e a Th

esisM

urray an

d P

earce

HOW TO EXAMINE A THESIS

• What is involved in examining a research-based higher degree?• What are the roles of the internal and external examiners?• What are the hidden agendas of higher degree examining?• What are the essential ingredients of a ‘good’ viva?

This handbook offers a revealing insight into the written – andunwritten – rules and regulations of higher degree examination inthe UK today. Addressed directly to the examiners, it contains a step-by-step account of the different stages of the examinationprocess in order to provide an insiders’ guide into what to expectbefore, during and after the oral examination.

How to Examine a Thesis covers such important issues such as:

• The power-relations between the two (or more) examiners• Hidden agendas and foul play• Examples of guidelines and regulations across different

institutions• Advice on MPhil as well as PhD examinations

This book is essential reading for all higher degree examiners but is also of importance to those supervising, and studying for, higherdegrees. Moreover, although the book focuses primarily on currentpractices in the UK, comparisons are drawn with ContinentalEurope, Australia and the United States. Examiners, supervisors andstudents throughout the world will therefore find the book of considerable interest.

Lynne Pearce is Professor of Literary Theory in the Department ofEnglish and Creative Writing at Lancaster University. In recent yearsshe has been Director of Postgraduate Studies in her department andAssociate Dean for Postgraduate Teaching for the Humanities Faculty. She is convenor of the Humanities Faculty’s ‘ResearchMethods seminars’ and has supervised thirteen PhD students to successful completion. She has also examined in excess of twentyMPhil and PhD theses both in the UK and overseas.

cover design: Kate Prentice

� ��

��

how to examine a thesis

Documents