PhD Viva: far too secretive and in need of fundamental reform.

Jean Valjean

This is somewhat longer than I had expected but I feel it needs to be said. First off, I was recently awarded my PhD and was impressed by the professionalism and decency of the examiners. They were determined to get me through even when I disagreed with one of them - e.g. another examiner would offer alternative wording as a way out of conflict between myself and an examiner.

The period leading up to it was, however, marked by what could kindly be described as a complete communication breakdown.

• I waited more than four months between submission date and viva date, and was told of the latter 10 days beforehand. This is despite the university's maximum waiting time of 2 months. I was not given a reason for the delay and upon inquiry to the relevant person was informed that the date was outside his/her control.

• All this time (and for the duration of the PhD) I had been expecting to have two examiners. 10 days before the viva I was informed that I would have three examiners. No explanation was offered - none at all. It was apparently "decided by the Academic Council". Completely and utterly unacceptable, and I had absolutely no power over this. I emphasise, I was never told why I should have an additional examiner which is a very, very big deal when nobody else you have heard of had three examiners. What was going on?

• I was unhappy with one of those choices (and had suggested another person) as an examiner. This, too, was not entertained and the seemingly unaccountable Academic Council gave no justification for their choice of additional examiner.

• There is a complete absence of a viva standard across the Irish Third-Level system. From my increasingly despairing searches much of the viva process is decided by individual university schools/departments who are supposed to - but in general do not - follow the (very) vague viva policy of their respective universities. Common questions I had before the viva: how long is the viva (I didn't need precise times; I needed a general idea of the length of the viva for my discipline but there was no such information compiled for either the education system or the university).

• Not only is a common standard needed for the viva, but full information about what is to be expected should be made available to each student in plenty of time before his/her viva. Each student has a right to information/certainty about how the viva system works.

• Two hours before the viva I was informed that in addition to three examiners I would have an independent observer appointed by the Head of the Department. Two hours. And what policy allowed that? I was not told. Where could I read that policy during my preparation for the viva? Nowhere because the viva voce system is a law unto itself. Why was I not informed of that months beforehand? (I was waiting for over 4 months, after all)

---

In my view, the organisation of the viva denied a wide range of rights to me:

 the right to be fully informed, at the latest on my submission date, of the exact date and time of my viva

 the right to have a viva within as short a time as possible following submission (I had to get on with my life/job applications etc)

 the right to have decisions concerning the viva explained to me well in advance so that I am assured that the system is being open and transparent with me.

 the right not to have a major change such as an extra examiner appointed without, at the very least, a legitimate reason being given to me and the appointment being made in plenty of time.

 I should have a say in who will be my external examiner. The reason for this is obvious: any student worth his or her salt will disagree with particular views within their discipline. Given the huge egos in the very small world of academia, it is not wise to have somebody you disagree with deciding the success of all your work. It is being overly naive to expect the average examiner to rise above challenges to his/her own work posed in your thesis (which is precisely what happened in my viva with other examiners coming in to offer "compromise" wording)

---

Lastly, and to whom do you go when you want to complain about all of the above? Nobody, absolutely nobody. There is nobody and every university department and supervisor knows this. Complain about your supervisor? Not smart, not at all. Positively, in fact, dim. The dimmest thing you could possibly do after working your heart out for years. Complain about your department? Likewise.

There is a great silence out there from people who have had bad experiences of the viva in the Irish system because they are afraid of being identified and what that will mean for their career. They also, in many cases, don't want to negatively affect their supervisor’s career as they have respect and friendship with him/her. I, for instance, still have a great respect for my supervisor and would never speak out publicly about him/her. But to say ineptitude, lack of structure and secrecy marked his/her role in organising the viva is patently to understate things. Because PhD students are not speaking out against it, there is no pressure for fundamental reform. The need for this reform is, to my mind, beyond question.

claire h

The failure to give you adequate notice of the date and who the examiners would be does seem like a serious issue.

What is your discipline?

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the idea that you should be able to choose an external examiner. If you were going for a job interview, would you expect to be able to select your interviewers? They're assessing you and your work, not the other way around. Ego may well come into it, but it could work the other way as well, if a thesis agrees or follows on from the examiner's own research. There's a reason it's not left up to one single academic.

queensinead

I can sympathize with your annoyance about not being told when your Viva was to take place. Like you say, you want to be able to plan and get on with your job//life.

But really, as far as the rest of it goes, I am afraid that you are making the kind of demands that would not really be acceptable in any other area of life.
The Viva resembles, I suppose, a job interview, where extra interviewers, or interviewers you have never heard of, or personnel drafted in to observe the interview, can be added at any time. You will not be informed, and may have no idea of the composition of the interview panel until you walk into the room.

Like an interview, I imagine the Viva is to put you through your paces, and see if you can defend your thesis, including any controversial ideas it contains. That includes defending them in front of academics who disagree with you. Despite what you say, I do not think every PHd thesis contains controversial ideas, or ideas in conflict with extern academics. But fair play to you for going out on a limb. (If that is so. I'm going on the fact that you say your supervisor had to smooth things over a bit). The price of being a bit controversial is that you will have to take the flak and be prepared to defend your position.

You are not the one calling the shots here. I cannot imagine any situation where you would be allowed to have input into the composition of the panel, or have an automatic right to be informed about extra members or observers. Life is not like that. (I'm not saying it shouldn't be!)

brianthebard

The rights you listed don't sound like rights so much as things you think you deserve. I would have assumed there would be three examiners tbh. As for being able to chose the external examiner, you don't have that option for your masters thesis so I don't know why you'd think it possible for your phd. I understand the Viva is a stressful experience but that doesn't mean you're entitled to special treatment.

Slydice

I'd say that being able to choose your external examiner would be a very bad thing to add to the process of a PhD Viva.

If you want it that easy, then sure you could just buy a doctorate from a spam email.

djpbarry

Slydice wrote: »

I'd say that being able to choose your external examiner would be a very bad thing to add to the process of a PhD Viva.

So who decides who the examiner(s) should be?

Red Alert

In the science disciplines I gather that the supervisor and student sometimes do consult on who the external examiner is.

graduate

You can suggest appropriate reviewers to a journal, but the editor will ultimately decide whether to use any of these and will probably add someone you didn't suggest just to keep things honest. It seems to me that a Viva is analagous to this.

IvyTheTerrible

Red Alert wrote: »

In the science disciplines I gather that the supervisor and student sometimes do consult on who the external examiner is.

This is my experience, and the experience of a fair few of my friends who did phds with me.

OP: What sort of communication did you have with your supervisor? Myself and my supervisor had fairly in-depth communication on who we would ask to be my examiners. At least in trinity, when the thesis is submitted, you have to give names of potential examiners, and then the graduate studies office officially asks them if they will be examiners. Usually your supervisor will have asked them before this process.

As regards to the viva process, there is usually a standard process for the viva that changes per department. If you ask the postgraduate coordinator or the head of the department, they should have been able to give you the information.